Chameleon

Added

• A per-edit missing-required-method advisory closes an effectiveness gap: the
  class_contract artifact (an archetype's required methods, derived at bootstrap)
  was advertised in the pre-edit block but no lint ever verified it. Now, on a
  post-edit lint, a class that extends the archetype's dominant base but omits a
  method the entire cohort defines is nudged (an ActiveJob subclass without
  perform, a service without call). It is advisory-only (never block-eligible),
  Ruby + Python, and false-positive-safe by construction:
  • Only a method the cohort defines at 100% frequency is enforced. A genuine
    abstract-method contract is always 1.0 (the base raises NotImplementedError,
    so every subclass implements it); a method in the 0.95-0.99 band is instead a
    commonly-overridden method with a base default, or one some members inherit via
    a mixin -- flagging it is a false positive the file-level check cannot see
    through. Measured ~0 false positives at 1.0 versus ~91% below it, across
    gitlabhq, ef-api, mastodon, maybe, and Django (1500+ files, 0 false positives).
  • Only a class DIRECTLY extending the dominant base is in the cohort (matched on
    the full qualified base name, or its unqualified short form -- not a different
    class that merely shares a common tail like Foo::Base); the base class itself
    is exempt; and the method is flagged only when it is defined nowhere in the file.
  • Wired through every lint path (in-process, the lint_file tool, and the daemon)
    so the artifact reaches the check rather than silently vanishing.