Add v0.9 community launch pack

README.md

@@ -139,6 +139,7 @@ An outcome contract is structural evidence, not runtime enforcement. Money and c
 - [Architecture and limitations](docs/architecture.md)
 - [Reproducible demo](docs/demo.md)
 - [Release audit](docs/release-audit.md)
+- [Community launch pack](docs/community-launch-v0.9.md)
 - [Roadmap](docs/roadmap.md)
 - [Codex for Open Source application gate](docs/codex-for-oss-application.md)
 - [Contributing](CONTRIBUTING.md)

docs/codex-for-oss-application.md

@@ -8,6 +8,8 @@ Program terms: <https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/codex-for-oss-terms>
 
 Prepared: 2026-07-22
 
+Official form rechecked: 2026-07-22
+
 ## Recommendation
 
 Submit in **English**, even through the PT-BR form. OpenAI publishes no language requirement and no evidence that language changes selection odds. English is recommended only to reduce translation friction for a global technical review.
@@ -38,11 +40,11 @@ Submit immediately after the v0.9.0 release on 2026-07-24. Do not wait for arbit
 
 ### Maintainer role
 
-Select: **Principal maintainer**.
+Select: **Primary maintainer**.
 
 ### Why is this repository eligible?
 
-Recount before submission; keep under 500 characters.
+Character count: **356/500**.
 
 > Vibeflow is an MIT-licensed safety gate for AI-generated n8n workflows, rebuilt end-to-end with Codex. It audited a real 92-node workflow in read-only mode, finding 3 blocking risks and 57 warnings. Community feedback then shaped v0.9: outcome-aware checks for refunds, customer actions, silent failures, audit, idempotency, approval, limits, and recovery.
 
@@ -67,7 +69,7 @@ Character count: **390/500**.
 
 ### Anything else we should know?
 
-Recount before submission; keep under 500 characters.
+Character count: **381/500**.
 
 > Vibeflow is a public case study in Codex-native OSS development. Codex drove the project from product repositioning through implementation, adversarial review, remediation, CI, plugin packaging, releases, a real-workflow audit, and the v0.9 response to user feedback. Adoption is early, but the engineering, maintenance history, and real-world evidence are public and reproducible.
 
@@ -97,6 +99,7 @@ Use these links only if OpenAI requests verification; the form has no dedicated
 - Release and Red Team audit: <https://github.com/domfelipe/vibeflow-n8n/blob/main/docs/release-audit.md>
 - CI history: <https://github.com/domfelipe/vibeflow-n8n/actions/workflows/ci.yml>
 - Launch discussion: <https://github.com/domfelipe/vibeflow-n8n/discussions/3>
+- Public r/n8n feedback that shaped v0.9: <https://www.reddit.com/r/n8n/comments/1v3is1w/i_built_an_opensource_safety_gate_for_aigenerated/>
 - Engineering PRs: <https://github.com/domfelipe/vibeflow-n8n/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Amerged>
 
 ## Evidence snapshot
@@ -107,8 +110,9 @@ Refresh this section on 2026-07-24 immediately before submission. Current candid
 - `v0.9.0` release candidate, with v0.8.0 already public;
 - 36 adversarial tests passing locally and in remote Node.js 20, 22, and 24 CI;
 - dependency-free CLI, GitHub Action, and installable Codex plugin;
-- 3 prior maintainer PRs merged with green CI; add the v0.9 PR after merge;
+- 5 maintainer PRs merged with green CI, including the v0.9 implementation PR;
 - 2 stars, 0 forks, and no verified external contributor yet;
+- public r/n8n launch thread with several substantive comments that directly shaped VF010-VF013;
 - first real audit: anonymized 92-node workflow, 3 blocking findings, 57 warnings, no workflow mutation;
 - Codex used across product repositioning, implementation, review, Red Team, remediation, packaging, CI, release, real-workflow audit, and the community-feedback-driven v0.9 cycle.
 

docs/community-launch-v0.9.md

@@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
+# Community launch pack — v0.9.0
+
+Publish only after the public `v0.9.0` release URL works.
+
+## Feedback provenance
+
+The v0.9 scope came from the public [original r/n8n launch thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/n8n/comments/1v3is1w/i_built_an_opensource_safety_gate_for_aigenerated/), not a speculative roadmap.
+
+| Community feedback | v0.9 response |
+|---|---|
+| Separate dangerous nodes from dangerous outcomes | VF010 and VF011 classify money, customer, privileged, and destructive-data actions. |
+| Require idempotency, approval, amount/counterparty limits, and durable audit | `outcomeContracts` verifies graph evidence for those controls. |
+| Error paths can exist but notify nobody | VF012 requires an operator-visible failure path. |
+| Writes need rollback or replay stories | VF013 requires compensation, rollback, or replay evidence. |
+| Static checks cannot replace runtime guardrails | The CLI and documentation explicitly preserve that boundary. |
+
+Captured on 2026-07-22: the thread had 3 votes and several substantive comments. Treat the comments as product evidence; do not present the vote count as broad adoption.
+
+## Reddit — r/n8n
+
+### Title
+
+I built your feedback into Vibeflow v0.9: outcome-aware preflight checks for n8n workflows
+
+### Post
+
+I shared Vibeflow here earlier and two pieces of feedback changed the direction of the project:
+
+1. A dangerous outcome is not the same thing as a dangerous node. A normal HTTP node can still issue a refund, send a payment, notify a customer, change access, or delete data.
+2. A connected error branch is not enough if it silently terminates, and a write is not production-ready without a rollback, compensation, or replay story.
+
+That feedback is now implemented in Vibeflow v0.9.
+
+Vibeflow is a local, dependency-free preflight checker for exported n8n workflow JSON. The new release adds:
+
+- `VF010`: blocks money and privileged actions without an outcome contract;
+- `VF011`: warns about uncontracted customer communications and destructive writes;
+- `VF012`: detects error paths that notify nobody;
+- `VF013`: requires compensation, rollback, or replay evidence.
+
+For a contracted action, the checker verifies structural evidence in the workflow graph:
+
+- an atomic idempotency claim cannot be bypassed;
+- a durable audit write happens before the action;
+- approval, amount, and counterparty checks have real allow/deny branches;
+- the failure notification is connected to the action's error output;
+- recovery is represented in the graph.
+
+The important boundary: this is static preflight, not runtime enforcement. The payment/customer system must still enforce authorization, limits, counterparties, durable audit, and recovery at runtime.
+
+There is a reproducible unsafe refund workflow and a passing contracted version in the repository:
+
+https://github.com/domfelipe/vibeflow-n8n
+
+Release: https://github.com/domfelipe/vibeflow-n8n/releases/tag/v0.9.0
+
+I am especially looking for anonymized examples of:
+
+- a real-world action the classifier misses;
+- a false positive where the workflow is demonstrably safe;
+- a control that looks present in JSON but can still be bypassed;
+- a recovery pattern that does not fit compensate/rollback/replay.
+
+Please remove credentials and customer data before sharing workflow fragments. The best reports will become paired unsafe/safe regression fixtures.
+
+## Short reply to the original commenters
+
+Your distinction between dangerous nodes and dangerous outcomes became the core of v0.9. The release now detects ordinary HTTP/database/message nodes by impact and validates idempotency, approval, amount/counterparty limits, durable audit, operator-visible failures, and recovery evidence. I kept runtime enforcement explicitly outside the claim. Thank you — this materially improved the project.
+
+## GitHub Discussion
+
+### Title
+
+Vibeflow v0.9: help test outcome contracts against real n8n workflows
+
+### Body
+
+Vibeflow v0.9 adds outcome-aware preflight policies for money, customer, privileged, and destructive-data actions. The implementation was driven by community feedback that ordinary nodes can still produce dangerous real-world outcomes.
+
+Please test an exported workflow and report anonymized false positives, missed actions, bypassable controls, or recovery patterns. Useful reports need a minimal unsafe case, the expected safe case, and the exported JSON fields that distinguish them.
+
+- Release: https://github.com/domfelipe/vibeflow-n8n/releases/tag/v0.9.0
+- Demo: https://github.com/domfelipe/vibeflow-n8n/blob/v0.9.0/docs/demo.md
+- False-positive report: https://github.com/domfelipe/vibeflow-n8n/issues/new?template=false-positive.yml
+- Policy proposal: https://github.com/domfelipe/vibeflow-n8n/issues/new?template=rule-proposal.yml
+
+Never attach credentials, customer data, or a private production workflow.
+
+## Evidence rules
+
+- Do not ask for artificial stars, forks, or empty PRs.
+- Record only public, attributable usage or anonymized audit outcomes.
+- Convert actionable feedback into an issue and paired unsafe/safe fixture.
+- Never publish customer workflow names, IDs, node names, credentials, or infrastructure identifiers.

docs/launch.md

@@ -26,3 +26,5 @@ A normal HTTP, database, or messaging node can refund money, contact a customer,
 > The new outcome contracts detect money, customer, privileged, and destructive-data actions — including ordinary HTTP nodes — and verify structural evidence for idempotency, approval, limits, durable audit, failure notification, and recovery. It is local, dependency-free, CI-friendly, and explicit about what still needs runtime enforcement.
 
 Link to the repository and the safe/unsafe refund demo. Ask users for anonymized workflows, classifier false positives/negatives, and missing domain actions.
+
+Ready-to-post Reddit and GitHub Discussion copy: [community-launch-v0.9.md](community-launch-v0.9.md).