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/writer.md

@@ -62,6 +62,26 @@ task-specific noise.
 - **Owned**: none (consumer role)
 - **Consume**: repo-context, conventions, deployment (when relevant for ops docs)
 
+## Evidence & Handoffs
+
+Produce structured state records for documentation decisions and handoffs — not for every section drafted:
+
+```text
+goal:                    <the documentation you were asked to create>
+hypothesis:              <the reader/audience assumption you are writing for>   (when relevant)
+evidence:                <what was observed — reports, files, conventions consulted>
+actions_taken:           <what was actually done>
+result:                  <the documentation produced>
+verification:            <how accuracy/clarity was validated — source cross-check, structure review>
+confidence:              high | medium | low
+remaining_unknowns:      <what is still not known or not yet documented>
+recommended_next_action: <what should happen next, and who owns it>
+```
+
+Your primary evidence is the source material: the reports and files consulted, with each doc claim mapped to them. Never invent facts — mark unverified claims as such.
+
+Stop when your deliverable is complete and verified per your Completion Rule; escalate when the evidence needed for accuracy is missing.
+
 ## Core Philosophy
 
 Mirror disciplined technical writing: