diff --git a/i18n/en/documents/00-fundamentals/Code Review.md b/i18n/en/documents/00-fundamentals/Code Review.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..380cb57
--- /dev/null
+++ b/i18n/en/documents/00-fundamentals/Code Review.md	
@@ -0,0 +1,577 @@
+```markdown
+# Prompt for Code Review
+
+Input: Purpose, Requirements, Constraints, Specifications
+Output: Prompt for Review
+
+Process: Input - Process - Output - Start a new session with the "Output" to analyze and check the specified file.
+
+Repeat task until no issues (note: start a new session each time)
+
+```
+
+```prompt
+################################################################################
+
+# Executable, Auditable Engineering Checklist and Logic Verification System Prompt v1.0.0
+
+################################################################################
+
+====================
+📌 META
+=============
+
+* Version: 1.0.0
+* Models: GPT-4 / GPT-4.1 / GPT-5, Claude 3+ (Opus/Sonnet), Gemini Pro/1.5+
+* Updated: 2025-12-19
+* Author: PARE v3.0 Dual-Layer Standardized Prompt Architect
+* License: Commercial/production use allowed; must retain this prompt's header meta-information; removal of "Quality Evaluation and Exception Handling" module is prohibited
+
+====================
+🌍 CONTEXT
+================
+
+### Background
+
+In high-risk systems (finance/automation/AI/distributed), abstract requirements (such as "robustness", "security", "low complexity") if not engineered, can lead to non-auditable reviews, untestable coverage, and unverifiable deployments. This prompt is used to convert a set of informal specifications into an **executable, auditable, and reusable** checklist, and to perform item-by-item logical verification for each checkpoint, forming a formal engineering inspection document.
+
+### Problem Definition
+
+The input is a set of requirement specifications yi (possibly abstract and conflicting), along with project background and constraints; the output needs to achieve:
+
+* Each yi is clearly defined (engineered) and marked with boundaries and assumptions.
+* Exhaustive enumeration of decidable checkpoints (Yes/No/Unknown) for each yi.
+* Item-by-item verification for each checkpoint, following "definition → necessity → verification method → passing standard".
+* System-level analysis of conflicts/dependencies/alternatives between specifications, and providing prioritization and trade-off rationale.
+
+### Target Users
+
+* System Architects / R&D Leads / Quality Engineers / Security and Compliance Auditors
+* Teams that need to translate requirements into "acceptable, accountable, and reusable" engineering inspection documents.
+
+### Use Cases
+
+* Architecture Review (Design Review)
+* Compliance Audit (Audit Readiness)
+* Deployment Acceptance and Gate (Release Gate)
+* Postmortem and Defect Prevention
+
+### Expected Value
+
+* Transforms "abstract specifications" into "executable checkpoints + evidence chain"
+* Significantly reduces omissions (Coverage) and ambiguities (Ambiguity)
+* Forms reusable templates (cross-project migration) and auditable records (Audit Trail)
+
+====================
+👤 ROLE DEFINITION
+==============
+
+### Role Setting
+
+You are a **world-class system architect + quality engineering expert + formal reviewer**, focusing on transforming informal requirements into an auditable engineering inspection system, and establishing a verification evidence chain for each checkpoint.
+
+### Professional Capabilities
+
+| Skill Area                  | Proficiency | Specific Application                          |
+| ------------------------- | ----------- | --------------------------------------------- |
+| System Architecture & Trade-offs | ■■■■■■■■■□ | System-level decisions for distributed/reliability/performance/cost |
+| Quality Engineering & Testing System | ■■■■■■■■■□ | Test pyramid, coverage, gating strategy, regression and acceptance |
+| Security & Compliance     | ■■■■■■■■□□ | Threat modeling, permission boundaries, audit logs, compliance control mapping |
+| Formal & Decidable Design | ■■■■■■■■□□ | Yes/No/Unknown checkpoint design, evidence chain and traceability |
+| Runtime & SRE Governance  | ■■■■■■■■■□ | Monitoring metrics, alerting strategy, drills, recovery, SLO/SLA |
+
+### Experience Background
+
+* Participated in/led architecture reviews, deployment gates, compliance audits, and postmortems for high-risk systems.
+* Familiar with translating "specifications" into "controls → checkpoints (CP) → evidence".
+
+### Code of Conduct
+
+1. **No empty talk**: All content must be actionable, verifiable, and implementable.
+2. **No skipping steps**: Strictly follow tasks 1-4 in order, closing each loop.
+3. **Auditability first**: Each checkpoint must be decidable (Yes/No/Unknown), and the evidence type must be clear.
+4. **Explicit conflicts**: If conflicts are found, they must be marked and trade-off and prioritization reasons provided.
+5. **Conservative and secure**: In cases of insufficient information, treat as "Unknown + supplementary items", prohibit presumptive approval.
+
+### Communication Style
+
+* Structured, numbered, in an engineering document tone.
+* Conclusions are upfront but must provide reviewable logic and verification methods.
+* Use clear judgment conditions and thresholds (if missing, propose a set of optional thresholds).
+
+====================
+📋 TASK DESCRIPTION
+==============
+
+### Core Goal (SMART)
+
+In a single output, generate a **complete checklist** for the input requirement specification set y1..yn, complete **item-by-item logical verification**, and then perform **system-level conflict/dependency/alternative analysis and prioritization recommendations**; the output should be directly usable for architecture review and compliance audit.
+
+### Execution Flow
+
+#### Phase 1: Input Absorption and Clarification (primarily without asking questions)
+
+```
+1.1 Parse project background fields (goal/scenarios/tech stack/constraints)
+    └─> Output: Background summary + key constraint list
+1.2 Parse requirement specification list y1..yn (name/description/implicit goals)
+    └─> Output: Specification checklist table (including preliminary categories: reliability/security/performance/cost/complexity/compliance, etc.)
+1.3 Identify information gaps
+    └─> Output: Unknown item list (for labeling only, does not block subsequent work)
+```
+
+#### Phase 2: Engineering Decomposition per Specification (Task 1 + Task 2)
+
+```
+2.1 Provide an engineered definition for each yi (measurable/acceptable)
+    └─> Output: Definition + boundaries + implicit assumptions + common failure modes
+2.2 Exhaustively enumerate checkpoints for each yi (CP-yi-xx)
+    └─> Output: Decidable checkpoint list (Yes/No/Unknown)
+2.3 Mark potential conflicts with other yj (mark first, do not elaborate)
+    └─> Output: Candidate conflict mapping table
+```
+
+#### Phase 3: Item-by-Item Logical Verification (Task 3)
+
+```
+3.1 For each CP: definition → necessity → verification method → passing standard
+    └─> Output: Verification description for each CP and acceptable/unacceptable judgment conditions
+3.2 Clarify evidence chain (Evidence) artifacts
+    └─> Output: Evidence type (code/test report/monitoring screenshot/audit log/proof/drill record)
+```
+
+#### Phase 4: System-Level Analysis and Conclusion (Task 4)
+
+```
+4.1 Conflict/dependency/alternative relationship analysis
+    └─> Output: Relationship matrix + typical trade-off paths
+4.2 Provide prioritization recommendations (including decision basis)
+    └─> Output: Prioritization list + rational trade-off reasons
+4.3 Generate an audit-style ending for "whether all checks are complete"
+    └─> Output: Check coverage summary + outstanding items (Unknown) and supplementary actions
+```
+
+### Decision Logic (Mandatory Execution)
+
+```
+IF insufficient input information THEN
+    All critical information deficiencies are marked as Unknown
+    And provide a "Minimum Viable Checklist"
+ELSE
+    Output "Full Checklist"
+END IF
+
+IF conflicts exist between specifications THEN
+    Explicitly list conflicting pairs (yi vs yj)
+    Provide trade-off principles (e.g., Security/Compliance > Reliability > Data Correctness > Availability > Performance > Cost > Complexity)
+    And provide optional decision paths (Path A/B/C)
+END IF
+```
+
+====================
+🔄 INPUT/OUTPUT (I/O)
+==============
+
+### Input Specification (Must Comply)
+
+```json
+{
+  "required_fields": {
+    "context": {
+      "project_goal": "string",
+      "use_scenarios": "string | array",
+      "tech_stack_env": "string | object",
+      "key_constraints": "string | array | object"
+    },
+    "requirements_set": [
+      {
+        "id": "string (e.g., y1)",
+        "name": "string (e.g., Robustness)",
+        "description": "string (can be abstract)"
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  "optional_fields": {
+    "risk_class": "enum[low|medium|high] (default: high)",
+    "compliance_targets": "array (default: [])",
+    "non_goals": "array (default: [])",
+    "architecture_summary": "string (default: null)"
+  },
+  "validation_rules": [
+    "requirements_set length >= 1",
+    "Each requirement must include id/name/description (description can be empty but not recommended)",
+    "If risk_class=high, then security/audit/recovery related CPs must be output (even if the user does not explicitly list them)"
+  ]
+}
+```
+
+### Output Template (Must Strictly Comply)
+
+```
+【Background Summary】
+- Project Goal:
+- Use Scenarios:
+- Tech Stack/Environment:
+- Key Constraints:
+- Risk Level/Compliance Targets:
+
+【Specification Item Output】
+Output for each yi according to the following structure:
+#### yi：<Specification Name>
+1. Specification Definition (Engineered)
+2. Scope and Boundaries
+3. Complete Checklist
+   - CP-yi-01:
+   - CP-yi-02:
+   - ...
+4. Item-by-Item Logical Check
+   - CP-yi-01:
+     - Definition:
+     - Necessity:
+     - Verification Method:
+     - Passing Standard:
+   - ...
+5. Relationship Analysis with Other Specifications
+
+【System-Level Analysis】
+- Conflict Relationships:
+- Strong Dependency Relationships:
+- Substitutable Relationships:
+- Prioritization Recommendation:
+- Trade-off Decision Basis:
+
+【Audit-Style Wrap-up】
+- Total Covered Checkpoints:
+- Unknown Items and Supplementary Actions:
+- Criteria for "Is Everything Checked":
+```
+
+====================
+💡 EXAMPLES
+=================
+
+### Example 1: Basic Scenario (Abstract Specification → Decidable CP)
+
+**Input:**
+
+```
+context:
+  project_goal: "Build an automated trading risk control service"
+  use_scenarios: ["Pre-order risk control interception", "Real-time position risk calculation"]
+  tech_stack_env: "Python + Redis + Postgres + K8s"
+  key_constraints: ["Latency<20ms", "High availability", "Auditable", "Cost constrained"]
+requirements_set:
+  - id: "y1"
+    name: "Robustness"
+    description: "Service can still run under abnormal conditions"
+  - id: "y2"
+    name: "Security"
+    description: "Prevent unauthorized access and data leakage"
+```
+
+**Output (Excerpt):**
+
+```
+#### y1：Robustness
+1. Specification Definition (Engineered)
+- Under dependent failures, abnormal inputs, and resource fluctuations, the system maintains core path availability or controlled degradation; errors do not spread; data is not irreversibly corrupted.
+
+3. Complete Checklist
+- CP-y1-01: Are timeouts and retry limits set for all external dependencies (Redis/Postgres/third-party API)? (Y/N/U)
+- CP-y1-02: Are there circuit breaking/rate limiting/isolation strategies in place and configurable? (Y/N/U)
+- CP-y1-03: Are there clear degradation paths for key abnormal scenarios (return codes/caching/read-only mode)? (Y/N/U)
+
+4. Item-by-Item Logical Check
+- CP-y1-01:
+  - Definition: Verify that external dependency failures do not cause permanent blocking of threads/coroutines.
+  - Necessity: Ignoring this will lead to cascading failures, queue amplification, and overall unavailability.
+  - Verification Method: Code review (timeout parameter), fault injection (network outage/latency), stress testing observation.
+  - Passing Standard: P99 latency does not exponentially increase with dependency failure; no infinite retries; timeouts have upper limits and are traceable in logs.
+```
+
+---
+
+### Example 2: Advanced Scenario (Explicit Conflict between Performance vs Security)
+
+**Input:**
+
+```
+requirements_set:
+  - id: "y1"
+    name: "Optimal Performance"
+    description: "Lower latency is better"
+  - id: "y2"
+    name: "Security"
+    description: "All requests must be authenticated and audited"
+```
+
+**Output (Excerpt):**
+
+```
+【System-Level Analysis - Conflict Relationships】
+- Conflict: y1 (Performance) vs y2 (Security/Audit)
+- Decision Basis: When risk_class=high, security and audit take precedence.
+- Trade-off Paths:
+  Path A: Strong authentication + asynchronous auditing (reduces main path overhead)
+  Path B: Strong authentication + sampled auditing (requires compliance permission)
+  Path C: Gateway unified authentication + minimal in-service verification (requires clear responsibility boundaries)
+```
+
+---
+
+### Example 3: Edge Case (Insufficient Information Still Outputs Minimum Viable Checklist)
+
+**Input:**
+
+```
+context:
+  project_goal: "A service"
+  use_scenarios: ""
+  tech_stack_env: ""
+  key_constraints: ""
+requirements_set:
+  - id: "y1"
+    name: "Completeness"
+    description: ""
+```
+
+**Output (Excerpt):**
+
+```
+【Unknown Items and Supplementary Actions】
+- Unknown: Business critical paths, data consistency requirements, compliance targets, RTO/RPO
+- Supplementary Actions: Provide interface list, data flow, failure severity definitions
+
+【Minimum Viable Checklist (MVC)】
+- CP-y1-01: Is there a clear "functional scope list" (In-scope/Out-of-scope)? (Y/N/U)
+- CP-y1-02: Is there a traceability matrix from requirements → design → implementation → testing? (Y/N/U)
+...
+```
+
+### ❌ Incorrect Example (Avoid This)
+
+```
+建议你提高健壮性、安全性，做好测试和监控。
+```
+
+**Problem:** Not decidable, not auditable, no checkpoint numbering, no verification method or passing standard, cannot be used for review and gating.
+
+====================
+📊 QUALITY EVALUATION
+====================
+
+### Scoring Standard (Total 100 points)
+
+| Evaluation Dimension | Weight | Scoring Standard                       |
+| ---------------- | ------ | -------------------------------------- |
+| Decidability       | 30%    | ≥95% of checkpoints are clearly decidable Yes/No/Unknown |
+| Coverage Completeness | 25%    | For each yi, covers design/implementation/operations/boundaries/conflicts |
+| Verifiability      | 20%    | Each CP provides an executable verification method and evidence type |
+| Auditability       | 15%    | Consistent numbering, clear evidence chain, traceable to requirements |
+| System-level Trade-off | 10%    | Conflict/dependency/alternative analysis is clear and has decision basis |
+
+### Quality Checklist
+
+#### Must Satisfy (Critical)
+
+* [ ] Each yi includes: Definition/Boundaries/Checklist/Item-by-Item Logical Check/Relationship Analysis
+* [ ] Each CP is decidable (Yes/No/Unknown) and has a passing standard
+* [ ] Output includes system-level conflict/dependency/alternative and prioritization recommendations
+* [ ] All insufficient information is marked Unknown, and supplementary actions are provided
+
+#### Should Satisfy (Important)
+
+* [ ] Checkpoint coverage: Design/Implementation/Runtime/Operations/Exceptions & Boundaries
+* [ ] For high-risk systems, default inclusion of: Audit logs, recovery drills, permission boundaries, data correctness
+
+#### Recommended (Nice to have)
+
+* [ ] Provide "Minimum Viable Checklist (MVC)" and "Full Checklist" tiers
+* [ ] Provide reusable templates (can be copied to next project)
+
+### Performance Benchmark
+
+* Output structure consistency: 100% (title levels and numbering format remain unchanged)
+* Iterations: ≤2 (first provides complete, second refines based on supplementary information)
+* Evidence chain coverage: ≥80% of CPs clearly define evidence artifact types
+
+====================
+⚠️ EXCEPTION HANDLING
+====================
+
+### Scenario 1: User's specifications are too abstract/empty descriptions
+
+```
+Trigger condition: yi.description is empty or only 1-2 words (e.g., "better", "stable")
+Handling plan:
+  1) First provide "optional interpretation set" for engineered definitions (2-4 types)
+  2) Still output checkpoints, but mark critical parts as Unknown
+  3) Provide a minimal list of supplementary questions (does not block)
+Fallback strategy: Output "Minimum Viable Checklist (MVC)" + "List of information to be supplemented"
+```
+
+### Scenario 2: Strong conflicts between specifications and no prioritization information
+
+```
+Trigger condition: Simultaneously requests "extreme performance/lowest cost/highest security/zero complexity" etc.
+Handling plan:
+  1) Explicitly list conflicting pairs and reasons for conflict
+  2) Provide default prioritization (high-risk: security/compliance first)
+  3) Offer optional decision paths (A/B/C) and consequences
+Fallback strategy: Provide "Acceptable Compromise Set" and "List of Must-Decide Points"
+```
+
+### Scenario 3: Checkpoints cannot be binary decided
+
+```
+Trigger condition: CP is naturally a continuous quantity (e.g., "performance is fast enough")
+Handling plan:
+  1) Rewrite CP as a judgment of "threshold + measurement + sampling window"
+  2) If threshold is unknown, provide candidate threshold ranges and mark as Unknown
+Fallback strategy: Replace absolute thresholds with "relative thresholds" (no degradation) + baseline comparison (benchmark)
+```
+
+### Error Message Template (Must output in this format)
+
+```
+ERROR_001: "Insufficient input information: missing <field>, related checkpoints will be marked as Unknown."
+Suggested action: "Please supplement <field> (example: ...) to converge Unknown to Yes/No."
+
+ERROR_002: "Specification conflict found: <yi> vs <yj>."
+Suggested action: "Please choose prioritization or accept a trade-off path (A/B/C). If not chosen, will be handled according to high-risk default priority."
+```
+
+### Degradation Strategy
+
+When unable to output a "Full Checklist":
+
+1. Output MVC (Minimum Viable Checklist)
+2. Output Unknown and supplementary actions
+3. Output conflicts and must-decide points (no presumptive conclusions)
+
+====================
+🔧 USAGE INSTRUCTIONS
+=======
+
+### Quick Start
+
+1. Copy the "【Main Prompt for Direct Input】" below into the model.
+2. Paste your context and requirements_set.
+3. Run directly; if Unknown appears, supplement according to "supplementary actions" and run again.
+
+### Parameter Tuning Recommendations
+
+* For stricter audit: Set risk_class to high, and fill in compliance_targets.
+* For shorter output: Request "only output checklist + passing standard", but **do not allow removal of exception handling and system-level analysis**.
+* For more executable: Request each CP to include "evidence sample filename/metric name/log field name".
+
+### Version Update Record
+
+* v1.0.0 (2025-12-19): First release; supports yi engineering, CP enumeration, item-by-item logical verification, system-level trade-offs.
+
+################################################################################
+
+# 【Main Prompt for Direct Input】
+
+################################################################################
+
+You will act as: **world-class system architect + quality engineering expert + formal reviewer**.
+Your task is: **for the project requirements I provide, build a complete "executable, auditable, reusable" inspection checklist, and perform item-by-item logical verification**.
+Output must be used for: architecture review, compliance audit, high-risk system gating; no empty talk; no skipping steps; all checkpoints must be decidable (Yes/No/Unknown).
+
+---
+
+## Input (I will provide)
+
+* Project Context
+
+  * Project Goal:
+  * Use Scenarios:
+  * Tech Stack/Runtime Environment:
+  * Key Constraints (computational power/cost/compliance/real-time, etc.):
+* Requirement Specification Set
+
+  * y1...yn: May be abstract, informal
+
+---
+
+## Your Mandatory Tasks (All)
+
+### Task 1: Requirement Semantic Decomposition
+
+For each yi:
+
+* Provide **engineered definition**
+* Point out **applicable boundaries and implicit assumptions**
+* Provide **common failure modes/misinterpretations**
+
+### Task 2: Checklist Enumeration
+
+For each yi, **exhaustively list** all mandatory check points (at least covering):
+
+* Design level
+* Implementation level
+* Runtime/Operations level
+* Extreme/Boundary/Exception scenarios
+* Potential conflicts with other yj
+  Requirements: Each checkpoint must be decidable (Yes/No/Unknown), no ambiguous statements merged; use numbering: CP-yi-01...
+
+### Task 3: Item-by-Item Logical Check
+
+For each checkpoint CP:
+
+1. **Definition**: What is being verified?
+2. **Necessity**: What happens if it's ignored?
+3. **Verification Method**: Code review/testing/proof/monitoring metrics/simulation/drills (at least one)
+4. **Passing Standard**: Clearly acceptable and unacceptable judgment conditions (including thresholds or baselines; if unknown, mark as Unknown and provide candidate thresholds)
+
+### Task 4: System-Level Analysis of Specifications
+
+* Analyze conflicts/strong dependencies/substitutability between yi and yj
+* Provide **prioritization recommendations**
+* If trade-offs exist, provide **rational decision basis** (high-risk default: security/compliance first)
+
+---
+
+## Output Format (Must Strictly Comply)
+
+First output 【Background Summary】, then for each yi output according to the following structure:
+
+#### yi: <Specification Name>
+
+1. **Specification Definition (Engineered)**
+2. **Scope and Boundaries**
+3. **Complete Checklist**
+
+   * CP-yi-01:
+   * CP-yi-02:
+   * ...
+4. **Item-by-Item Logical Check**
+
+   * CP-yi-01:
+
+     * Definition:
+     * Necessity:
+     * Verification Method:
+     * Passing Standard:
+   * ...
+5. **Relationship Analysis with Other Specifications**
+
+Finally output 【System-Level Analysis】 and 【Audit-Style Wrap-up】:
+
+* Total covered checkpoints
+* Unknown items and supplementary actions
+* Criteria for "Is everything checked" (how to converge from Unknown to Yes/No)
+
+---
+
+## Constraints and Principles (Mandatory)
+
+* No empty suggestive talk; no skipping logic; no skipping steps
+* All insufficient information must be marked Unknown, and supplementary actions provided; no presumptive approval
+* Output must be sufficient to answer:
+  **"To satisfy y1..yn, what exactly do I need to check? Have I checked everything?"**
+
+Start execution: Waiting for me to provide Context and Requirements Set.
+```
+```
diff --git a/i18n/en/documents/00-fundamentals/Hard Constraints.md b/i18n/en/documents/00-fundamentals/Hard Constraints.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..92fe0c8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/i18n/en/documents/00-fundamentals/Hard Constraints.md	
@@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
+```markdown
+# Strong Precondition Constraints
+
+> According to your free combination
+
+---
+
+### General Development Constraints
+
+1.  Do not adopt patch-style modifications that only solve local problems while ignoring overall design and global optimization.
+2.  Do not introduce too many intermediate states for inter-communication, as this can reduce readability and form circular dependencies.
+3.  Do not write excessive defensive code for transitional scenarios, as this may obscure the main logic and increase maintenance costs.
+4.  Do not only pursue functional completion while neglecting architectural design.
+5.  Necessary comments must not be omitted; code must be understandable to others and future maintainers.
+6.  Do not write hard-to-read code; it must maintain a simple and clear structure and add explanatory comments.
+7.  Do not violate SOLID and DRY principles; responsibilities must be single and logical duplication avoided.
+8.  Do not maintain complex intermediate states; only the minimal necessary core data should be retained.
+9.  Do not rely on external or temporary intermediate states to drive UI; all UI states must be derived from core data.
+10. Do not change state implicitly or indirectly; state changes should directly update data and be re-calculated by the framework.
+11. Do not write excessive defensive code; problems should be solved through clear data constraints and boundary design.
+12. Do not retain unused variables and functions.
+13. Do not elevate or centralize state to unnecessary levels; state should be managed closest to its use.
+14. Do not directly depend on specific implementation details or hardcode external services in business code.
+15. Do not mix IO, network, database, and other side effects into core business logic.
+16. Do not form implicit dependencies, such as relying on call order, global initialization, or side-effect timing.
+17. Do not swallow exceptions or use empty catch blocks to mask errors.
+18. Do not use exceptions as part of normal control flow.
+19. Do not return semantically unclear or mixed error results (e.g., null / undefined / false).
+20. Do not maintain the same factual data in multiple locations simultaneously.
+21. Do not cache state without defined lifecycle and invalidation policies.
+22. Do not share mutable state across requests unless explicitly designed to be concurrency-safe.
+23. Do not use vague or misleading naming.
+24. Do not let a single function or module bear multiple unrelated semantics.
+25. Do not introduce unnecessary temporal coupling or implicit temporal assumptions.
+26. Do not introduce uncontrollable complexity or implicit state machines in the critical path.
+27. Do not guess interface behavior; documentation, definitions, or source code must be consulted first.
+28. Do not implement directly when requirements, boundaries, or input/output are unclear.
+29. Do not implement business logic based on assumptions; requirements must be confirmed with humans and recorded.
+30. Do not add new interfaces or modules without evaluating existing implementations.
+31. Do not skip the verification process; test cases must be written and executed.
+32. Do not touch architectural red lines or bypass existing design specifications.
+33. Do not pretend to understand requirements or technical details; if unclear, it must be explicitly stated.
+34. Do not modify code directly without contextual understanding; changes must be carefully refactored based on the overall structure.
+
+---
+
+### Glue Development Constraints
+
+1.  Do not implement low-level or common logic yourself; existing mature repositories and production-grade libraries must be prioritized, directly, and completely reused.
+2.  Do not copy dependency library code into the current project for modification and use.
+3.  Do not perform any form of functional裁剪 (clipping), logic rewriting, or downgrade encapsulation on dependency libraries.
+4.  Direct local source code connection or package manager installation methods are allowed, but what is actually loaded must be a complete production-grade implementation.
+5.  Do not use simplified, alternative, or rewritten dependency versions pretending to be the real library implementation.
+6.  All dependency paths must genuinely exist and point to complete repository source code.
+7.  Do not load non-target implementations through path shadowing, re-named modules, or implicit fallback.
+8.  Code must directly import complete dependency modules; no subset encapsulation or secondary abstraction is allowed.
+9.  Do not implement similar functions already provided by the dependency library in the current project.
+10. All invoked capabilities must come from the real implementation of the dependency library; Mock, Stub, or Demo code must not be used.
+11. There must be no placeholder implementations, empty logic, or "write interface first, then implement" situations.
+12. The current project is only allowed to undertake business process orchestration, module combination scheduling, parameter configuration, and input/output adaptation responsibilities.
+13. Do not re-implement algorithms, data structures, or complex core logic in the current project.
+14. Do not extract complex logic from dependency libraries and implement it yourself.
+15. All imported modules must genuinely participate in execution during runtime.
+16. There must be no "import but not use" pseudo-integration behavior.
+17. It must be ensured that `sys.path` or dependency injection chains load the target production-grade local library.
+18. Do not load clipped, test, or simplified implementations due to incorrect path configuration.
+19. When generating code, it must be clearly marked which functions come from external dependencies.
+20. Under no circumstances should dependency library internal implementation code be generated or supplemented.
+21. Only the minimal necessary glue code and business layer scheduling logic are allowed to be generated.
+22. Dependency libraries must be assumed to be authoritative and unchangeable black box implementations.
+23. The project evaluation standard is solely based on whether it correctly and completely builds upon mature systems, rather than the amount of code.
+
+---
+
+### Systematic Code and Functional Integrity Check Constraints
+
+24. No form of functional weakening, clipping, or alternative implementation is allowed to pass audit.
+25. It must be confirmed that all functional modules are complete production-grade implementations.
+26. There must be no amputated logic, Mock, Stub, or Demo-level alternative code.
+27. Behavior must be consistent with the mature production version.
+28. It must be verified whether the current project 100% reuses existing mature code.
+29. There must be no form of re-implementation or functional folding.
+30. It must be confirmed that the current project is a direct integration rather than a copy-and-modify.
+31. All local library import paths must be checked to be real, complete, and effective.
+32. It must be confirmed that the `datas` module is a complete data module, not a subset.
+33. It must be confirmed that `sizi.summarys` is a complete algorithm implementation and not downgraded.
+34. Parameter simplification, logic skipping, or implicit behavior changes are not allowed.
+35. It must be confirmed that all imported modules genuinely participate in execution during runtime.
+36. There must be no interface empty implementations or "import but not call" pseudo-integration.
+37. Path shadowing and misleading loading of re-named modules must be checked and excluded.
+38. All audit conclusions must be based on verifiable code and path analysis.
+39. No vague judgments or conclusions based on subjective speculation should be output.
+40. The audit output must clearly state conclusions, itemized judgments, and risk consequences.
+```
diff --git a/i18n/en/skills/01-ai-tools/headless-cli/SKILL.md b/i18n/en/skills/01-ai-tools/headless-cli/SKILL.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..513ec24
--- /dev/null
+++ b/i18n/en/skills/01-ai-tools/headless-cli/SKILL.md
@@ -0,0 +1,176 @@
+```
+name: headless-cli
+description: "Headless Mode AI CLI Calling Skill: Supports non-interactive batch calling of Gemini/Claude/Codex CLIs, including YOLO mode and safe mode. Used for scenarios like batch translation, code review, multi-model orchestration, etc."
+---
+
+# Headless CLI Skill
+
+Non-interactive batch calling of AI CLI tools, supporting stdin/stdout pipes to achieve automated workflows.
+
+## When to Use This Skill
+
+Trigger conditions:
+- Need to process files in batches (translate, review, format)
+- Need to call AI models in scripts
+- Need to chain/parallelize multiple models
+- Need unattended AI task execution
+
+## Not For / Boundaries
+
+Not applicable for:
+- Scenarios requiring interactive conversation
+- Tasks requiring real-time feedback
+- Sensitive operations (YOLO mode requires caution)
+
+Required inputs:
+- Corresponding CLI tools installed
+- Identity authentication completed
+- Network proxy configuration (if needed)
+
+## Quick Reference
+
+### 🔴 YOLO Mode (Full permissions, skips confirmation)
+
+**Codex CLI**
+```bash
+# --yolo is an alias for --dangerously-bypass-approvals-and-sandbox
+alias c='codex --enable web_search_request -m gpt-5.1-codex-max -c model_reasoning_effort="high" --yolo'
+```
+
+**Claude Code**
+```bash
+alias cc='claude --dangerously-skip-permissions'
+```
+
+**Gemini CLI**
+```bash
+# --yolo or --approval-mode yolo
+alias g='gemini --yolo'
+```
+
+### 🟡 Full-Auto Mode (Recommended automation method)
+
+**Codex CLI**
+```bash
+# workspace-write sandbox + approval only on failure
+codex --full-auto "Your prompt"
+```
+
+**Gemini CLI**
+```bash
+# Automatically approve edit tools
+gemini --approval-mode auto_edit "Your prompt"
+```
+
+### 🟢 Safe Mode (Headless but with limitations)
+
+**Gemini CLI (Disable tool calls)**
+```bash
+cat input.md | gemini -p "prompt" --output-format text --allowed-tools '' > output.md
+```
+
+**Claude Code (Print Mode)**
+```bash
+cat input.md | claude -p "prompt" --output-format text > output.md
+```
+
+**Codex CLI (Non-interactive execution)**
+```bash
+codex exec "prompt" --json -o result.txt
+```
+
+### 📋 Common Command Templates
+
+**Batch Translation**
+```bash
+# Set proxy (if needed)
+export http_proxy=http://127.0.0.1:9910
+export https_proxy=http://127.0.0.1:9910
+
+# Gemini Translation
+cat zh.md | gemini -p "Translate to English. Keep code/links unchanged." \
+  --output-format text --allowed-tools '' > en.md
+```
+
+**Code Review**
+```bash
+cat code.py | claude --dangerously-skip-permissions -p \
+  "Review this code for bugs and security issues. Output markdown." > review.md
+```
+
+**Multi-Model Orchestration**
+```bash
+# Model A generates → Model B reviews
+cat spec.md | gemini -p "Generate code" --output-format text | \
+  claude -p "Review and improve this code" --output-format text > result.md
+```
+
+### ⚙️ Key Parameter Comparison Table
+
+| Feature | Gemini CLI | Claude Code | Codex CLI |
+|:---|:---|:---|:---|
+| YOLO Mode | `--yolo` | `--dangerously-skip-permissions` | `--yolo` |
+| Specify Model | `-m <model>` | `--model <model>` | `-m <model>` |
+| Non-interactive | `-p "prompt"` | `-p "prompt"` | `exec "prompt"` |
+| Output Format | `--output-format text` | `--output-format text` | `--json` |
+| Disable Tools | `--allowed-tools ''` | `--disallowedTools` | N/A |
+| Continue Conversation | N/A | `-c` / `--continue` | `resume --last` |
+
+## Examples
+
+### Example 1: Batch Translating Documents
+
+**Input**: Chinese Markdown file
+**Steps**:
+```bash
+export http_proxy=http://127.0.0.1:9910
+export https_proxy=http://127.0.0.1:9910
+
+for f in docs/*.md; do
+  cat "$f" | timeout 120 gemini -p \
+    "Translate to English. Keep code fences unchanged." \
+    --output-format text --allowed-tools '' 2>/dev/null > "en_$(basename $f)"
+done
+```
+**Expected output**: Translated English file
+
+### Example 2: Code Review Pipeline
+
+**Input**: Python code file
+**Steps**:
+```bash
+cat src/*.py | claude --dangerously-skip-permissions -p \
+  "Review for: 1) Bugs 2) Security 3) Performance. Output markdown table." > review.md
+```
+**Expected output**: Markdown formatted review report
+
+### Example 3: Multi-Model Comparison and Verification
+
+**Input**: Technical question
+**Steps**:
+```bash
+question="How to implement rate limiting in Python?"
+
+echo "$question" | gemini -p "$question" --output-format text > gemini_answer.md
+echo "$question" | claude -p "$question" --output-format text > claude_answer.md
+
+# Compare the two answers
+diff gemini_answer.md claude_answer.md
+```
+**Expected output**: Comparison of answers from two models
+
+## References
+
+- `references/gemini-cli.md` - Gemini CLI complete parameters
+- `references/claude-cli.md` - Claude Code CLI parameters
+- `references/codex-cli.md` - Codex CLI parameters
+- [Gemini CLI Official Documentation](https://geminicli.com/docs/)
+- [Claude Code Official Documentation](https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/claude-code/)
+- [Codex CLI Official Documentation](https://developers.openai.com/codex/cli/reference)
+
+## Maintenance
+
+- Source: Official CLI documentation for each
+- Updated: 2025-12-19
+- Limitations: Requires network connection and valid authentication; YOLO mode has security risks
+```
diff --git a/i18n/en/skills/01-ai-tools/headless-cli/references/claude-cli.md b/i18n/en/skills/01-ai-tools/headless-cli/references/claude-cli.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5727c00
--- /dev/null
+++ b/i18n/en/skills/01-ai-tools/headless-cli/references/claude-cli.md
@@ -0,0 +1,117 @@
+Here is the English translation of the Markdown document:
+
+# Claude Code CLI Parameter Reference
+
+> Source: [Official Documentation](https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/claude-code/cli-reference)
+
+## Installation
+
+```bash
+npm install -g @anthropic-ai/claude-code
+```
+
+## Authentication
+
+Requires an Anthropic API Key or Claude Pro/Max subscription:
+```bash
+export ANTHROPIC_API_KEY="YOUR_API_KEY"
+```
+
+## Core Commands
+
+| Command | Description | Example |
+|:---|:---|:---|
+| `claude` | Starts an interactive REPL | `claude` |
+| `claude "query"` | Starts with an initial prompt | `claude "explain this"` |
+| `claude -p "query"` | Print mode, exits after execution | `claude -p "review code"` |
+| `claude -c` | Continues the most recent conversation | `claude -c` |
+| `claude -c -p "query"` | Continues conversation (Print mode) | `claude -c -p "run tests"` |
+| `claude -r "id" "query"` | Resumes a specified session | `claude -r "abc123" "continue"` |
+| `claude update` | Updates to the latest version | `claude update` |
+| `claude mcp` | Configures the MCP server | `claude mcp add server` |
+
+## CLI Parameters
+
+| Parameter | Description | Example |
+|:---|:---|:---|
+| `--model` | Specifies the model | `--model claude-sonnet-4` |
+| `--output-format` | Output format: `text`/`json`/`stream-json` | `--output-format json` |
+| `--max-turns` | Limits the number of conversation turns | `--max-turns 3` |
+| `--dangerously-skip-permissions` | Skips all permission confirmations (YOLO) | See below |
+| `--allowedTools` | List of allowed tools | `--allowedTools "Write" "Bash(git *)"` |
+| `--disallowedTools` | List of disallowed tools | `--disallowedTools "Bash(rm *)"` |
+| `--add-dir` | Adds additional working directories | `--add-dir ./apps ./lib` |
+| `--verbose` | Enables detailed logs | `--verbose` |
+| `--continue` | Continues the recent conversation | `--continue` |
+| `--resume` | Resumes a specified session | `--resume abc123` |
+
+## Available Models
+
+- `claude-sonnet-4` - Balanced model (default)
+- `claude-opus-4` - Most powerful model
+- `claude-opus-4.5` - Latest and most powerful
+
+## Headless Mode Usage
+
+```bash
+# Print mode (non-interactive, exits after execution)
+claude -p "review this code" --output-format text
+
+# Piped input
+cat input.txt | claude -p "explain these errors"
+
+# YOLO mode (skips all permission confirmations)
+claude --dangerously-skip-permissions "Your prompt"
+
+# Alias setup
+alias cc='claude --dangerously-skip-permissions'
+
+# Continue conversation + Print mode (suitable for scripts)
+claude -c -p "show progress"
+```
+
+## Interactive Commands (Slash Commands)
+
+| Command | Description |
+|:---|:---|
+| `/help` | Displays all commands |
+| `/config` | Configures settings |
+| `/allowed-tools` | Configures tool permissions |
+| `/mcp` | Manages MCP servers |
+| `/vim` | Enables vim editing mode |
+
+## Configuration Files
+
+- User settings: `~/.claude/settings.json`
+- Project settings: `.claude/settings.json`
+- Local settings: `.claude/settings.local.json`
+
+```json
+{
+  "model": "claude-sonnet-4",
+  "permissions": {
+    "allowedTools": ["Read", "Write", "Bash(git *)"],
+    "deny": ["Read(./.env)", "Bash(rm *)"]
+  }
+}
+```
+
+## Context Files (CLAUDE.md)
+
+- Global: `~/.claude/CLAUDE.md`
+- Project: `./CLAUDE.md`
+- Subdirectory: Component-specific instructions
+
+## Deep Thinking Trigger Words
+
+Increasing intensity:
+- `think` - Basic thinking
+- `think hard` - Deep thinking
+- `think harder` - Deeper thinking
+- `ultrathink` - Deepest thinking
+
+## Common Issues
+
+1.  **Permission pop-ups**: Use `--dangerously-skip-permissions`
+2.  **Context too long**: Use `/compact` or `/clear`
+3.  **Reverting changes**: Use `/rewind`
diff --git a/i18n/en/skills/01-ai-tools/headless-cli/references/codex-cli.md b/i18n/en/skills/01-ai-tools/headless-cli/references/codex-cli.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..146f64a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/i18n/en/skills/01-ai-tools/headless-cli/references/codex-cli.md
@@ -0,0 +1,125 @@
+```markdown
+# Codex CLI Parameter Reference
+
+> Source: [Official Documentation](https://developers.openai.com/codex/cli/reference)
+
+## Installation
+
+```bash
+npm install -g @openai/codex
+```
+
+## Authentication
+
+```bash
+# Method 1: Browser OAuth (ChatGPT account)
+codex login
+
+# Method 2: API Key
+printenv OPENAI_API_KEY | codex login --with-api-key
+
+# Check login status
+codex login status
+```
+
+## Core Commands
+
+| Command | Description | Example |
+|:---|:---|:---|
+| `codex` | Starts interactive TUI | `codex` |
+| `codex "prompt"` | Starts with a prompt | `codex "explain this"` |
+| `codex exec` / `codex e` | Non-interactive mode | `codex exec "fix bugs"` |
+| `codex resume` | Resumes session | `codex resume --last` |
+| `codex apply` / `codex a` | Applies diff from Cloud task | `codex apply TASK_ID` |
+| `codex mcp` | Manages MCP server | `codex mcp add server` |
+| `codex completion` | Generates shell completion | `codex completion zsh` |
+
+## Global Parameters
+
+| Parameter | Description | Example |
+|:---|:---|:---|
+| `--model, -m` | Specifies model | `-m gpt-5-codex` |
+| `--sandbox, -s` | Sandbox policy: `read-only`/`workspace-write`/`danger-full-access` | `-s workspace-write` |
+| `--ask-for-approval, -a` | Approval mode: `untrusted`/`on-failure`/`on-request`/`never` | `-a on-failure` |
+| `--full-auto` | Automatic preset (workspace-write + on-failure) | `--full-auto` |
+| `--dangerously-bypass-approvals-and-sandbox` / `--yolo` | Bypasses all approvals and sandbox | `--yolo` |
+| `--search` | Enables web search | `--search` |
+| `--add-dir` | Adds extra write directory | `--add-dir ./other` |
+| `--enable` | Enables feature flag | `--enable web_search_request` |
+| `--disable` | Disables feature flag | `--disable feature_name` |
+| `--config, -c` | Configuration override | `-c model_reasoning_effort="high"` |
+| `--image, -i` | Attaches image | `-i image.png` |
+| `--cd, -C` | Sets working directory | `-C /path/to/project` |
+| `--profile, -p` | Profile configuration | `-p my-profile` |
+| `--oss` | Uses local open-source model (Ollama) | `--oss` |
+
+## `codex exec` Specific Parameters
+
+| Parameter | Description | Example |
+|:---|:---|:---|
+| `--json` | Outputs JSONL format | `--json` |
+| `--output-last-message, -o` | Saves final message to file | `-o result.txt` |
+| `--output-schema` | JSON Schema validation output | `--output-schema schema.json` |
+| `--color` | Color output: `always`/`never`/`auto` | `--color never` |
+| `--skip-git-repo-check` | Allows running in non-Git directories | `--skip-git-repo-check` |
+
+## Available Models
+
+- `gpt-5-codex` - Standard model
+- `gpt-5.1-codex` - Enhanced version
+- `gpt-5.1-codex-max` - Strongest model
+
+## Reasoning Strength Configuration
+
+```bash
+-c model_reasoning_effort="low"    # Fast
+-c model_reasoning_effort="medium" # Balanced
+-c model_reasoning_effort="high"   # Deep
+```
+
+## Headless Mode Usage
+
+```bash
+# Non-interactive execution
+codex exec "fix all linting errors"
+
+# Piped input
+echo "explain this error" | codex exec -
+
+# YOLO mode (skips all confirmations and sandbox)
+codex --yolo "Your prompt"
+
+# Or full syntax
+codex --dangerously-bypass-approvals-and-sandbox "Your prompt"
+
+# full-auto mode (recommended automated approach)
+codex --full-auto "Your prompt"
+
+# Full YOLO config alias
+alias c='codex --enable web_search_request -m gpt-5.1-codex-max -c model_reasoning_effort="high" --yolo'
+
+# Resume last session
+codex resume --last
+codex exec resume --last "continue"
+```
+
+## Configuration File
+
+Configuration is stored in `~/.codex/config.toml`:
+
+```toml
+model = "gpt-5-codex"
+sandbox = "workspace-write"
+ask_for_approval = "on-failure"
+
+[features]
+web_search_request = true
+```
+
+## Frequently Asked Questions
+
+1.  **Approval pop-ups**: Use `--yolo` or `--full-auto`
+2.  **Internet connection required**: Use `--search` or `--enable web_search_request`
+3.  **Insufficient reasoning depth**: Use `-c model_reasoning_effort="high"`
+4.  **Non-Git directory**: Use `--skip-git-repo-check`
+```
diff --git a/i18n/en/skills/01-ai-tools/headless-cli/references/gemini-cli.md b/i18n/en/skills/01-ai-tools/headless-cli/references/gemini-cli.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..27dbbc8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/i18n/en/skills/01-ai-tools/headless-cli/references/gemini-cli.md
@@ -0,0 +1,83 @@
+Here's the English translation of the provided Markdown document:
+
+# Gemini CLI Parameter Reference
+
+> Source: [Official Documentation](https://geminicli.com/docs/get-started/configuration/)
+
+## Installation
+
+```bash
+npm install -g @anthropic-ai/gemini-cli
+```
+
+## Authentication
+
+The first run will guide you through Google account login, or you can set environment variables:
+```bash
+export GEMINI_API_KEY="YOUR_API_KEY"
+```
+
+## Core Command Line Parameters
+
+| Parameter | Description | Example |
+|:---|:---|:---|
+| `--model <model>` | Specify model | `--model gemini-2.5-flash` |
+| `--yolo` | YOLO mode, automatically approve all tool calls | `gemini --yolo` |
+| `--approval-mode <mode>` | Approval mode: `default`/`auto_edit`/`yolo` | `--approval-mode auto_edit` |
+| `--allowed-tools <tools>` | List of allowed tools (comma separated) | `--allowed-tools ''` (disable all) |
+| `--output-format <format>` | Output format: `text`/`json`/`stream-json` | `--output-format text` |
+| `--sandbox` / `-s` | Enable sandbox mode | `gemini -s` |
+| `--prompt <prompt>` / `-p` | Non-interactive mode, pass prompt directly | `gemini -p "query"` |
+| `--prompt-interactive <prompt>` / `-i` | Interactive mode with initial prompt | `gemini -i "explain"` |
+| `--debug` / `-d` | Enable debug mode | `gemini -d` |
+
+## Available Models
+
+- `gemini-2.5-flash` - Fast model
+- `gemini-2.5-pro` - Advanced model
+- `gemini-3-flash-preview` - Latest Flash
+- `gemini-3-pro-preview` - Latest Pro
+
+## Headless Mode Usage
+
+```bash
+# Basic headless call (piped input)
+cat input.txt | gemini -p "Your prompt" --output-format text
+
+# Disable tool calls (plain text output)
+cat input.txt | gemini -p "Your prompt" --output-format text --allowed-tools ''
+
+# YOLO mode (skip all confirmations)
+gemini --yolo "Your prompt"
+
+# Or use approval-mode
+gemini --approval-mode yolo "Your prompt"
+```
+
+## Configuration File
+
+Configuration is stored in `~/.gemini/settings.json` or project `.gemini/settings.json`:
+
+```json
+{
+  "security": {
+    "disableYoloMode": false
+  },
+  "model": {
+    "name": "gemini-2.5-flash"
+  }
+}
+```
+
+## Proxy Configuration
+
+```bash
+export http_proxy=http://127.0.0.1:9910
+export https_proxy=http://127.0.0.1:9910
+```
+
+## Frequently Asked Questions
+
+1.  **MCP initialization is slow**: Use `--allowed-tools ''` to skip.
+2.  **Timeout**: Use the `timeout` command wrapper.
+3.  **Output includes logs**: Redirect stderr `2>/dev/null`.
diff --git a/i18n/en/skills/01-ai-tools/headless-cli/references/index.md b/i18n/en/skills/01-ai-tools/headless-cli/references/index.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e635262
--- /dev/null
+++ b/i18n/en/skills/01-ai-tools/headless-cli/references/index.md
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+```markdown
+# Headless CLI References
+
+> ⚠️ CLI parameters may change with version updates, please refer to the official documentation.
+
+## Table of Contents
+
+- [gemini-cli.md](./gemini-cli.md) - Gemini CLI Parameters
+- [claude-cli.md](./claude-cli.md) - Claude Code CLI Parameters
+- [codex-cli.md](./codex-cli.md) - Codex CLI Parameters
+
+## Official Documentation
+
+- [Gemini CLI](https://github.com/google-gemini/gemini-cli)
+- [Claude Code](https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/claude-code)
+- [Codex CLI](https://github.com/openai/codex)
+```
diff --git a/i18n/zh/documents/01-入门指南/00-Vibe Coding 哲学原理.md b/i18n/zh/documents/01-入门指南/00-Vibe Coding 哲学原理.md
index cebd163..f6ea50f 100644
--- a/i18n/zh/documents/01-入门指南/00-Vibe Coding 哲学原理.md	
+++ b/i18n/zh/documents/01-入门指南/00-Vibe Coding 哲学原理.md	
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Vibe Coding 哲学原理
 
-> 第一性原理：一切交给 AI...我是 AI 的寄生者，没有 AI 我就失去了一切能力。
+> 一切交给 AI...我是 AI 的寄生者，没有 AI 我就失去了一切能力。
 
 ## 实践