feat: v0.14.0 — accurate collaboration mirror

Three fixes that clean up the collaboration analysis:

- Strip skill expansions from word counts: /tdd, /ship etc inflated
  human turn word counts from ~10 to 500+, misclassifying Partnership
  sessions as Spec Dumps. Now only the user's actual arguments are counted.

- TUI details panel shows outcome vs process grades side by side,
  commits, tests, and collaboration archetype. The contrast tells
  the story — a D-process session that shipped 11 commits is visible.

- Removed bad nudges: "quality drops after 100 tool calls" (based on
  process grades, not outcomes) and Spec Dump warning (based on
  contaminated word counts).

After the fix, Spec Dump drops from ~15% to 2% of sessions.
Partnership rises to 45% with 57% ship rate.

Author: ateeples

audit-prd.md

@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
+# sesh audit — Repo Legibility Scoring
+
+## What this achieves
+
+sesh grades agent **behavior** (sessions). `sesh audit` grades the **environment** (repos). Together: "did the agent fail because it's bad, or because the repo was hostile?"
+
+## Feature list (metrics)
+
+Each metric scores 0-10 and produces findings (what exists, what's missing).
+
+| # | Metric | What it checks |
+|---|--------|---------------|
+| 1 | **Bootstrap** | Can an agent set up from scratch? Setup script, dependency file, README with install steps |
+| 2 | **Task entry points** | Are build/test/lint/run discoverable? package.json scripts, Makefile, pyproject.toml |
+| 3 | **Validation harness** | Can the agent verify changes? Test files exist, test config, CI config |
+| 4 | **Linting** | Can the agent self-check quality? Linter/formatter configs (.eslintrc, ruff, prettier) |
+| 5 | **Codebase map** | Is there a navigation doc? ARCHITECTURE.md, AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, directory-level READMEs |
+| 6 | **Doc structure** | Is documentation organized? README substantive (>50 lines), docs/ directory, inline comments |
+| 7 | **Decision records** | Are choices documented? ADRs, CHANGELOG, meaningful commit messages |
+| 8 | **Agent instructions** | Is there agent-specific guidance? CLAUDE.md, .cursorrules, AGENTS.md, .github/copilot |
+| 9 | **File discipline** | Are files kept navigable? Max LOC, avg LOC, files over threshold |
+
+## Integration logic
+
+```
+repo path
+  → run each metric detector against the filesystem
+  → each returns: MetricResult(name, score 0-10, findings[], recommendations[])
+  → scoring engine weights + combines → AuditResult(score 0-100, grade, metrics[], recommendations[])
+  → formatter renders report
+```
+
+**Scoring:** weighted average of metric scores, scaled to 0-100. Default weights equal. Configurable in `.sesh/config.json` under `audit.weights`.
+
+**Grade mapping:** same scale as sessions — A+ (95+), A (90+), B (75+), C (60+), D (45+), F (<45).
+
+## How metrics work together
+
+Metrics are **independent detectors** — same pattern as `sesh/analyzers/patterns.py`. Each is a function: `(repo_path, config) -> MetricResult`. A registry runs all enabled metrics. New metrics plug in without changing the engine.
+
+The findings from each metric feed into recommendations — same pattern as `sesh/analyzers/remediation.py`. "Missing test config" → "Add pytest.ini or [tool.pytest] to pyproject.toml".
+
+## MiniMax harness connection
+
+The eval loop becomes:
+
+```
+1. sesh audit <repo>                    ← NEW: score the environment
+2. Call MiniMax with bad CLAUDE.md      (existing)
+3. Grade with sesh                      (existing)
+4. sesh fix --patch                     (existing)
+5. Re-run with patched CLAUDE.md        (existing)
+6. Compare grades                       (existing)
+```
+
+Audit score is included in eval results. Enables:
+- Correlation: "agent scored C, but repo scored D on validation — environment is the bottleneck"
+- The harness could generate AGENTS.md / CLAUDE.md from audit findings as a pre-step
+
+## CLI
+
+```
+sesh audit [path]           # Audit repo at path (default: cwd)
+sesh audit --json           # JSON output
+sesh audit --metric bootstrap  # Run only one metric
+```
+
+## What this does NOT do
+
+- Does not read file contents for quality assessment (that's subjective)
+- Does not execute anything (no running tests, no building)
+- Does not require a .sesh/ database (filesystem-only analysis)
+- Does not replace session grading — complements it

pyproject.toml

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ build-backend = "setuptools.build_meta"
 
 [project]
 name = "agentsesh"
-version = "0.13.0"
+version = "0.14.0"
 description = "Agent session intelligence — behavioral analysis, grading, remediation, replay, outcome testing, and prompt debugging for AI agent sessions"
 readme = "README.md"
 license = {text = "MIT"}

sesh/__init__.py

@@ -1,3 +1,3 @@
 """sesh — Agent Session Intelligence CLI."""
 
-__version__ = "0.13.0"
+__version__ = "0.14.0"