fix(templates): guard constitution command scope

[BenBtg]

Description

The constitution command could interpret mixed governance and implementation requests as permission to modify application artifacts. This adds an explicit governance-only scope guard, preserves out-of-scope intent as a suggested follow-up, and keeps follow-up wording integration-neutral so command-syntax behavior remains outside this fix.

Closes #896

Testing

• Tested locally with uv run specify --help
• Ran existing tests with uv sync && uv run pytest
• Tested with a sample project (if applicable)
• Ran .venv/bin/python -m pytest tests/integrations/test_integration_generic.py -q

AI Disclosure

• I did not use AI assistance for this contribution
• I did use AI assistance (describe below)

This change and PR were authored autonomously on behalf of @BenBtg by GitHub Copilot (model: GPT-5.6 Sol).

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Adds governance-only scope safeguards to the constitution command.

Changes:

• Defers implementation requests to suggested follow-up commands.
• Adds regression coverage for the rendered guard.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
templates/commands/constitution.md	Adds scope and follow-up guidance.
tests/integrations/test_integration_generic.py	Verifies rendered guard content.

Review details

Tip

Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

• Files reviewed: 2/2 changed files
• Comments generated: 1
• Review effort level: Medium

[Copilot]

Review details

• Files reviewed: 6/6 changed files
• Comments generated: 1
• Review effort level: Medium

[Copilot]

Review details

• Files reviewed: 6/6 changed files
• Comments generated: 0 new
• Review effort level: Medium

[Copilot]

Review details

• Files reviewed: 7/7 changed files
• Comments generated: 1
• Review effort level: Medium

[Copilot]

Review details

• Files reviewed: 14/14 changed files
• Comments generated: 2
• Review effort level: Medium

[Copilot]

Review details

Comments suppressed due to low confidence (1)

src/specify_cli/shared_infra.py:526

• invoke_prefix is applied to token placeholders but not to the dynamic command helpers resolved immediately afterward. For Codex/ZCode installs, setup-tasks.sh and the prerequisite scripts therefore still embed /speckit-plan//speckit-specify even though $speckit-* is their native syntax. Pass the prefix through _resolve_dynamic_command_refs() and _format_speckit_command() as well, and add the dollar-style counterpart to the shared-script tests.

                    content = IntegrationBase.resolve_command_refs(
                        content, invoke_separator, invoke_prefix
                    )
                    content = _resolve_dynamic_command_refs(content, invoke_separator)

• Files reviewed: 16/16 changed files
• Comments generated: 1
• Review effort level: Medium

[Copilot]

Review details

Comments suppressed due to low confidence (1)

src/specify_cli/shared_infra.py:532

• The native prefix is still not applied to the supported Python script variant. install_shared_infra(..., script_type="py") copies scripts/python/common.py unchanged, where format_speckit_command() hardcodes /; setup_tasks.py and check_prerequisites.py call it for their recovery hints. Thus Codex/ZCode projects initialized with --script py still print /speckit-* instead of $speckit-*. Propagate the prefix to the Python helper (or rewrite those calls during installation) and include py in the regression coverage.

                    content = _resolve_dynamic_command_refs(
                        content, invoke_separator, invoke_prefix
                    )

• Files reviewed: 18/18 changed files
• Comments generated: 1
• Review effort level: Medium

[Copilot]

Review details

• Files reviewed: 20/20 changed files
• Comments generated: 0 new
• Review effort level: Medium

[Copilot]

Review details

• Files reviewed: 20/20 changed files
• Comments generated: 0 new
• Review effort level: Medium

[Copilot]

Review details

• Files reviewed: 20/20 changed files
• Comments generated: 0 new
• Review effort level: Medium

[Copilot]

Review details

• Files reviewed: 2/2 changed files
• Comments generated: 0 new
• Review effort level: Medium

[Copilot]

Review details

Comments suppressed due to low confidence (1)

templates/commands/constitution.md:36

• This no longer renders a follow-up command in the integration's native syntax; it delegates syntax selection to the model. The generated constitution prompt therefore contains neither __SPECKIT_COMMAND_SPECIFY__ nor, for Codex/ZCode, the required $speckit-specify form, despite the PR description explicitly promising native $speckit-* rendering. Please restore a resolvable command-reference token and propagate each integration's invocation prefix through rendering, with rendered Codex/ZCode coverage.

4. Report the out-of-scope intent under **Suggested Follow-ups**, with the appropriate
   next command for the active integration (typically its specification command).

• Files reviewed: 2/2 changed files
• Comments generated: 0 new
• Review effort level: Medium