Pro/Teams — first-pass doctrine review of agentic code/workflow against the 10-principle Agentic AI Blueprint. ON CLIENT TIMEOUT — DO NOT RETRY THIS TOOL. Long-running LLM call (60-180s typical); MCP clients commonly close the call before the server returns. Retrying re-runs the 60-180s LLM call from scratch and burns compute. RECOVERY: the run_id is emitted in the FIRST notifications/progress event at t=0s (before the LLM call begins) — capture it. On timeout, call `me.validation_history(run_id='<that-id>')` to fetch the persisted result; the server-side run completes independently within a 20-minute budget. Edge case: if the transport dropped before the first progress notification (very rare; sub-second window), call `me.validation_history(repository='<same value you passed here>')` to find your most recent run. TASK-AUGMENTED INVOCATION (MCP 2025-11-25, SEP-1686): clients that advertise the `tasks` capability can task-augment this call by including `task: {ttl: <ms>}` inside the JSON-RPC request's `params` (NOT as a tool argument; alongside `arguments`, `_meta`, etc.). The server returns a `CreateTaskResult` immediately (taskId equals the run_id above) and runs the validation in the background. Spec-correct long-running pattern: poll via `tasks/get` for state, fetch the terminal payload via `tasks/result`, listen for `notifications/tasks/status` for push updates, and cancel via `tasks/cancel`. `_meta.progressToken` from the original request stays valid for the entire task lifetime. Sync (non-augmented) calls behave exactly as before, backwards-compatible by construction. The me.validation_history(run_id=...) recovery path remains the canonical recovery handle for clients that don't yet advertise the tasks capability. Returns code_classification (autonomous_agentic_workflow vs non_agentic_component), per-principle findings (verdict, severity_score 0-100, severity_class, code-cited evidence, recommendation), severity-weighted readiness (score|null, grade|null, tier ∈ {production_ready, emerging, draft, not_applicable}), recommended examples, reproducibility envelope (model, seed, doctrine_fingerprint, prompt_template_fingerprint), persistence_status with shareable run_id/badge_url/review_url. Those two URLs 404 until the run's owner publishes it: runs are private by default. Read `public_review` in the response before embedding either one. WHEN TO CALL: the user wants a governance audit, readiness score, or production_ready badge on an agent/workflow they just built or changed. WHEN NOT TO CALL: non-agentic plumbing (math utilities, type aliases, event-loop helpers, single-shot request/response handlers) returns tier=not_applicable with score=null/grade=null — that's not a failure, the doctrine simply doesn't grade non-agentic code, and architect.certify will refuse with not_agentic_component. Submit the OWNING agentic workflow instead. BEHAVIOR: long-running LLM call (~60-180s typical at high reasoning effort, single-pass; server-side budget 20 min). Mints run_id at t=0; first notifications/progress event carries run_id as recovery handle; keepalive every 30s. Persists ValidationRun + UserValidationRun + AIValidationRunLog + LLMUsageLog atomically; on rollback, badge/review URLs are stripped. Auth: Bearer <token>, Pro/Teams plan. UK/EU residency; transient OpenAI processing (no-training); prompt-injection in code is inert. INPUTS: send FULL file contents verbatim as `implementation_context` (NO truncation, NO `...` placeholders, NO comment removal — the architect treats your `...` as literal code and hallucinates bugs that don't exist). If too large, split into MULTIPLE calls scoped by file/module; never truncate one call. Pass repository="<name>" to group runs into a project trend. Pass private_session=true to skip the stored run (persistence + recovery disabled); operational security + cost logs are still kept. focus_area narrows scope; unmatched focus_area fails explicitly rather than silently widening. PAYLOAD COMPLETENESS (load-bearing if you intend to architect.certify this run): the validate first-pass is permissive — it scores on doctrine alignment + structural patterns visible in the submitted code. Cert's adversarial second-pass is rigorous — it scores on cert-payload-completeness as well as code correctness. A run that scores 100/A at validate can cert-reject pre-LLM with `payload_incomplete` when imported modules' surfaces aren't visible. To validate with INTENT TO CERT, also bundle verbatim public-surface stubs for every imported module: `from sqlalchemy.exc import SQLAlchemyError` → include a stub class; `from app.db import models` → include a `class models:` namespace stub with the columns/methods the code references; module-level imports of `dataclass`, `Literal`, `json`, `datetime`, `timezone` MUST also be in the payload (cert correctly catches when they're omitted — the module would NameError on import as submitted). 'Submit Like Production': the payload should be the code as it would actually run. TWO COMPLETENESS AXES. (1) IMPORTS: stub the public surface of every dependency (above). (2) ENFORCEMENT BRANCHES: the code under cert itself (approval gates, policy checks, recovery paths) must be the REAL logic, fully written. A placeholder body (`# ... execute approved action ...`, `pass # TODO`, a bare `...`) is graded as a MISSING control, not shorthand; cert scores what would actually run. Never sketch the agent you are certifying. Empirically reconfirmed PR #157 iter8 → iter9 cert downgrades. SCORE VARIANCE DISCLOSURE (anomaly #10 — empirically documented): validate scores are POINT ESTIMATES with an observed empirical variance band of ~20-67 pts on BYTE-IDENTICAL input. Runs against the same repository, same code, same deterministic seed (the seed is derived from input — same input → same seed) can produce materially different scores AND different top-blocker rankings, because OpenAI's reasoning models at reasoning_effort=high are not strictly deterministic even with the seed parameter pinned. The `reproducibility_mode='best_effort'` field on every response is the platform's honest disclosure of this property. For decisions where stability matters more than speed, call `architect.validate_consensus` (N=3-5 aggregated, median verdict + per-principle stability metrics) instead — collapses the variance, surfaces unstable principles explicitly. A single validate run is a single roll; consensus is the right tool when one score isn't enough. ITERATION LOOP — repository keying. Pass the SAME `repository` value across calls to chain iteration rounds; the validator auto-resolves the most recent prior run on (user, repository, scope) as `prior_run_baseline` and the LLM grades the new submission with iteration context (per-principle severity deltas surface in the response). Changing the `repository` string between calls — even subtly with an `iter-2` suffix — silently severs the chain and yields a fresh blind first-shot. Round numbering belongs in `task` or commit messages, never in `repository`. See the `architect-validation-orchestration` skill in the agent-asset pack for the full validate → consensus → certify sequence. VERIFICATION LAYERS (the two-layer doctrine this platform practices on itself): validate verifies DOCTRINE ALIGNMENT against the 10-principle Blueprint — design patterns, hand-off explicitness, operational-state inspectability, race/blocker handling at the architectural level. validate does NOT guarantee runtime correctness. cert verifies PAYLOAD COMPLETENESS and runs an adversarial second pass over the submitted code — catches production_blockers the first pass missed, name-errors on import, missing module surfaces, etc. cert does NOT verify runtime correctness either. Passing validate is a NECESSARY condition for production_ready, not a sufficient one. Runtime correctness (does this actually execute and behave?) is verified at the THIRD layer — your tests, types, walks. The platform's own recursive-integrity practice: every PR runs validate against its own primitives, then cert. Real bugs surfaced via this practice in PR #157 — NULL-UUID false-positive (iter3) and tie-breaker mismatch (iter5) — that 25 unit tests had missed. Two-layer verification is the discipline, not 'either/or'. TYPED FAILURES: timed_out, rate_limited, dependency_unavailable, schema_mismatch (each carries retryable + next_action). NEXT STEP: if tier=production_ready (A or B grade), the response carries certification_status='not_evaluated' — call architect.certify(run_id, code) to mint the certified production_ready badge (separate ~60-150s adversarial review, eligibility-gated). See Payload Completeness above for the common pre-cert pitfall.