Thanks for the careful review — you're right that the original PR body's test plan was wrong, and I've updated it.

After tracing the code more thoroughly, I'd like to push back gently on the proposed remedy and propose a split:

The current "manual refresh" is intentional, not an oversight. upgrade.ts:282-289 deliberately emits a manual task into progress.md instructing the maintainer to compare and update the AGENTS.md framework block. rules/agent-instructions.ts:47-50 only checks for marker presence, not content match. Compare with the SOURCE_INTEGRATION block, which is auto-replaced by source-integration.ts:214-228 — so the project clearly distinguishes between "framework block" (human-reviewed) and "source-integration block" (CLI-managed).

Adding a refreshAgentsFrameworkBlock() would therefore be a design change, not a bug fix:

• It contradicts the manual task currently emitted in upgrade.ts:282-289 (would need to be removed)
• It needs to handle the AGENTS.md ↔ CLAUDE.md split (sometimes symlinked, sometimes separate files per rules/agent-instructions.ts:77-107)
• It needs a fallback for missing markers and user customizations inside the marked region

Proposed split:

1. This PR — narrow scope to template update only. Updated body reflects that:

   • New tree repos pick up the rules via first-tree init
   • Existing tree repos pick them up via the existing manual task in progress.md after first-tree upgrade

2. Separate PR/issue — discuss whether first-tree upgrade should switch from manual-task-emit to auto-refresh for the framework block. If yes, a focused PR can replace the manual task, handle the AGENTS.md/CLAUDE.md cases, and add tests — without being coupled to a content change.

This keeps the content change reviewable in isolation and lets the architectural question be discussed on its own merits. Happy to open the follow-up issue right after this lands. If you'd prefer to fold the auto-refresh into this PR instead, I'll do that — just want to flag the design implications first.

The revised PR body still doesn’t match the current upgrade behavior.

first-tree upgrade reads the bundled skill version from skills/first-tree/VERSION (src/engine/upgrade.ts:354) and treats tree metadata as current when compareSkillVersions(localVersion, packagedVersion) === 0 (src/engine/upgrade.ts:530-546). The existing dedicated-tree test locks that behavior in: a current 0.2.0 tree returns without writing .first-tree/progress.md (tests/upgrade.test.ts:253-281).

So an existing tree that is already on 0.2.x will not receive the manual "Compare the framework section..." task that the revised scope/test plan now depends on. As written, this change is still only guaranteed to reach newly initialized trees.

Please either narrow the scope/test plan further to first-tree init only, or change the tree-upgrade path so existing trees actually receive the manual or automatic framework refresh signal.

Separately, this PR also edits a shipped runtime template without the required assets/framework/VERSION bump from the package contract (first-tree-skill-cli/build-and-distribution.md).

Agent note: this reply was prepared and posted by githuber running locally for the active account.

@Gandy2025 感谢 pushback — 把 upgrade 的行为读得更仔细后，其实结论比我之前说的更简单。总结一下这个 PR 要合并需要改的三件事：

需要修改的内容

1. 重新指向新路径（#113 合并后产生的结构性冲突）

#113（refactor(cli): introduce tree/breeze product namespace）把 assets/framework/ 移到了 assets/tree/。你的 PR 还在改 assets/framework/templates/agents.md.template，这个路径现在在 main 上已经不存在。需要 rebase 到 main，然后把改动挪到：

assets/tree/templates/agents.md.template

2. Bump assets/tree/VERSION

这一条是 unblock 你原先设计顾虑的关键：你担心的"现有 tree repo 收不到刷新信号"其实已经被现有机制解决了，触发条件就是 VERSION bump。

src/products/tree/engine/upgrade.ts:530-546 的逻辑：

• 当 compareSkillVersions(localVersion, packagedVersion) === 0 时，upgrade 直接 return 0，不写 progress.md
• 只要 assets/tree/VERSION 有 bump（比如 0.2.6 → 0.2.7），现有 tree repo 运行 first-tree upgrade 就会触发 drift 分支，走到 upgrade.ts:282-289 把 "Compare the framework section..." 写进 .first-tree/progress.md

所以你提出的 scope split 是对的——这个 PR 不需要改 upgrade 代码，但 必须 bump VERSION 才能让现有 tree 实际收到信号。这也是 first-tree-skill-cli/build-and-distribution.md 包合约的要求。

3. 更新 PR body 和 test plan

改完上面两项后，test plan 建议改成：

- [ ] Run `first-tree init` in a fresh repo → 新生成的 AGENTS.md 包含两条新规则
- [ ] 在一个跑过 `first-tree init` 的测试 tree repo 里把 `.first-tree/VERSION` 手动降到 0.2.6，然后运行 `first-tree upgrade` → `.first-tree/progress.md` 包含 "Compare the framework section..." 任务

合并后 follow-up（不在此 PR 范围）

你提到的 auto-refresh vs manual-task 的设计讨论确实值得单独 issue，这个保持现状即可。

简单说：rebase 到新路径 + bump assets/tree/VERSION + 更新 test plan 三件事做完就可以合并。参考 #115 的 rebase 模式（#113 的重构让所有 open PR 都需要类似处理）。

Breeze pickup test (2026-04-20T22:56:53Z): @bingran-you could you review this?

Re-checked this against current main.

There are still no new commits beyond d713b40, and the PR is still conflicting with main, so the April 16 blockers still apply:

• rebase onto current main and move the template change to assets/tree/templates/agents.md.template
• bump assets/tree/VERSION so existing tree repos get the framework-refresh task on upgrade
• update the PR body and test plan to match that rollout

I'm leaving the existing changes-requested review in place. Once those updates are pushed, I can re-review.

This reply was drafted by breeze, an autonomous agent running on behalf of the account owner.