fix(missions): state the INT-XX marker contract where agents actually see it

task_card_parser.rs scans every mission turn line-by-line for TASK/WORK/
HANDOFF/TEST_PASS/TEST_FAIL/REVIEW_APPROVE/REVIEW_BLOCK/COMPLETED and
materializes mission_tasks rows from them. The exact syntax it demands --
literal, own line, with the colon, no bold, no code fence, one INT id per
line -- was documented in two places the agent does not reliably read:

  1. the team-template role prompts, which are NEVER injected into mission
     turns (runtime_provision writes model_provider / risk_profile /
     mcp_bundles and nothing else), and
  2. a foundation skill the agent had to choose to fetch.

The phase directives said "emit INT-XX markers" without ever saying what one
looks like. So the parser's contract was stated nowhere load-bearing, and
whether a mission produced task cards came down to whether the model guessed
the format. This is a machine contract, not a style hint -- it belongs in
phase_task_text, the one text every mission turn receives.

Added a regression test that feeds every marker example from the generated
prompt through the real parser, so the syntax we advertise and the syntax we
accept cannot drift apart again.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>

crates/cm-api/src/phase_runner.rs

@@ -290,6 +290,28 @@ fn phase_task_text(kind: &str, title: &str, description: Option<&str>) -> String
         or content_search first, then file_edit to patch. Write your outputs\n\
         as REAL files with file_edit — do NOT paste code blocks in your reply\n\
         expecting the platform to save them; nothing else writes files for you.\n";
+    // The INT-XX markers are a machine contract, not a style preference:
+    // task_card_parser.rs scans turn output line-by-line for these literals and
+    // materializes `mission_tasks` rows from them. The rules used to live only
+    // in the team-template role prompts -- which are never injected into mission
+    // turns (runtime_provision.rs writes model/risk_profile/mcp_bundles and
+    // nothing else) -- and in a skill the agent had to choose to fetch. So the
+    // parser's contract was stated nowhere the agent reliably saw it. It is
+    // stated here because this is the one text every mission turn receives.
+    let marker_protocol = "\
+        TASK MARKERS (parsed literally, line by line — this is a machine contract):\n\
+        Emit these on their own line, with the colon, no bold, no code fence,\n\
+        exactly one INT id per line, at the END of a substantive turn:\n\
+        - TASK: INT-NN — <title>          open a new item\n\
+        - WORK: INT-NN                    started implementing\n\
+        - HANDOFF: INT-NN                 passed to test/review\n\
+        - TEST_PASS: INT-NN               tests green\n\
+        - TEST_FAIL: INT-NN — <reason>    build/tests failed\n\
+        - REVIEW_APPROVE: INT-NN          diff approved\n\
+        - REVIEW_BLOCK: INT-NN — <reason> changes requested\n\
+        - COMPLETED: INT-NN               done and pushed\n\
+        Never emit a marker you can't back up — COMPLETED without a corresponding\n\
+        commit desynchronizes the mission from the repo.\n";
     let directive = match kind {
         "research" => {
             "Your team is running the RESEARCH phase of this mission. \
@@ -323,7 +345,7 @@ fn phase_task_text(kind: &str, title: &str, description: Option<&str>) -> String
         }
         _ => "Execute this mission phase according to the mission brief.",
     };
-    format!("MISSION: {title}\n\n{tool_preamble}\n{directive}\n\nBRIEF:\n{base}")
+    format!("MISSION: {title}\n\n{tool_preamble}\n{marker_protocol}\n{directive}\n\nBRIEF:\n{base}")
 }
 
 /// Close phases whose topology_runs are all terminal.
@@ -472,6 +494,47 @@ mod tests {
         pairs.iter().map(|(k, v)| (k.to_string(), *v)).collect()
     }
 
+    /// The marker syntax we hand the agent must be the syntax we parse back.
+    ///
+    /// These two sides used to live far apart — the rules were in team-template
+    /// role prompts that mission turns never receive — so nothing caught a
+    /// drift between what we asked for and what `task_card_parser` accepts.
+    /// Every example line in the prompt is fed through the real parser here.
+    #[test]
+    fn task_text_marker_examples_parse() {
+        let text = phase_task_text("coding", "Demo", Some("brief"));
+
+        let examples: Vec<&str> = text
+            .lines()
+            .map(str::trim)
+            .filter(|l| l.starts_with("- ") && l.contains("INT-NN"))
+            .map(|l| l.trim_start_matches("- "))
+            .collect();
+        assert!(
+            examples.len() >= 8,
+            "expected the full marker ladder in the prompt, found {}: {examples:?}",
+            examples.len()
+        );
+
+        for ex in examples {
+            // Strip the trailing prose column ("open a new item") and the
+            // <placeholder>, leaving a marker line an agent would actually emit.
+            let line = ex.replace("INT-NN", "INT-05");
+            let line = line.split("  ").next().unwrap_or(&line).trim();
+            let line = line.replace("<title>", "Add retry").replace(
+                "<reason>",
+                "compile error",
+            );
+            let parsed = crate::task_card_parser::parse(&line);
+            assert_eq!(
+                parsed.len(),
+                1,
+                "prompt advertises a marker the parser does not accept: {line:?}"
+            );
+            assert_eq!(parsed[0].int_id, "INT-05", "wrong id parsed from {line:?}");
+        }
+    }
+
     /// The regression guard: the alias must survive a round-trip through the
     /// real `TopologyGraph` deserializer and land in `attrs`. A top-level
     /// `"agent"` key alone is dropped by serde, which silently routed every