Archive completed tasks, add cleanup commands, self-documenting dashboard UI

- Archive 79 completed framework-dev tasks from tasks/ -> tasks/complete/
- status.py: add --cleanup-done and --install-cleanup-schedule commands
- Add scripts/automaton-cleanup.sh for periodic task archiving
- Dashboard: rename 'Background' tab -> 'Agent', 'Cleanup' agent -> 'Completed Task Archiver', remove redundant group headers and pill badges, dim inactive agent placeholders
- .rules.md: add Self-Documenting UI Names rule
- New tests: test_cleanup_done.py, expanded test_app.py and test_task.py

tasks/fix-verdict-pass-inference/.state

@@ -1 +0,0 @@
-complete

tasks/fix-verdict-pass-inference/.state.approvals

@@ -1,2 +0,0 @@
-research:approved|2026-06-22T13:56:13.755971+00:00|user
-code_review:approved|2026-06-22T14:06:36.914334+00:00|user

tasks/fix-verdict-pass-inference/ADVERSARIAL_BUG_REPORT.md

@@ -1,18 +0,0 @@
-# Adversarial Bug Report: fix-verdict-pass-inference
-
-## Summary
-Adversarial review of the verdict parsing fix. One minor edge case noted (already in bug report).
-
-## Bugs Found
-No additional bugs beyond Bug 1 in BUG_REPORT.md (substring match within status value — Low severity, consistent with dashboard).
-
-## Analysis
-- **Consistency with dashboard**: The new `_parse_verdict_status_line()` mirrors `task.py:parse_verdict_status()` — both use the same `label in after_colon.upper()` pattern. This is deliberate alignment, not a bug.
-- **Fallback behavior**: Unparseable verdicts now return `"human_intervention"` instead of the old implicit behavior. This is safer — a verdict that can't be parsed should never be assumed PASS.
-- **Edge case — multiple status lines**: If a verdict has both `## Status: FAIL` and later `## Status: PASS`, the first match wins (FAIL). This is correct — the first status declaration is the authoritative one.
-- **Edge case — case variations**: `## status: pass` (lowercase) is handled by `low.startswith("## status")` and `after_colon.upper() == "PASS"` — correct.
-
-## Score
-0
-
-ADVERSARIAL_BUG_FIND_COMPLETE

tasks/fix-verdict-pass-inference/BUG_REPORT.md

@@ -1,15 +0,0 @@
-# Bug Report: fix-verdict-pass-inference
-
-## Summary
-The fix replaces substring search with structured-line parsing, correctly matching the dashboard's approach.
-
-## Bugs Found
-
-### Bug 1: Substring match within status line value
-- **Severity**: Low
-- **Location**: scripts/status.py:316
-- **Description**: `_parse_verdict_status_line()` uses `label in after_colon.upper()` which is a substring match within the status value. A status like `## Status: FAILURE` would match `FAIL` (since `"FAIL" in "FAILURE"` is True). However, this is consistent with the dashboard's `parse_verdict_status()` (task.py:82) which has the same pattern, and verdict status values are always exactly "PASS", "FAIL", or "NEEDS_REVIEW" per the referee prompt template.
-- **Suggested Fix**: Use exact match only: `if after_colon.upper() == label`. However, this would diverge from the dashboard's behavior and could break existing verdicts with extra text on the status line.
-
-## Score
-+1 (Low)

tasks/fix-verdict-pass-inference/CODE_REVIEW.md

@@ -1,13 +0,0 @@
-# Code Review: fix-verdict-pass-inference
-
-## Summary
-Replaces fragile substring search with structured-line parsing, matching the dashboard's existing `parse_verdict_status()` approach.
-
-## Findings
-- **Correctness**: `_parse_verdict_status_line()` correctly looks for `## Status:` and `- **Status**:` headers, extracting the value after the colon. The `after_colon.upper()` comparison handles case variations.
-- **Consistency**: The new helper mirrors `automaton/dashboard/core/task.py:parse_verdict_status()` — good alignment between enforcement layers.
-- **Fallback**: Unparseable verdicts now return `"human_intervention"` instead of the old behavior (which would have returned `human_intervention` for anything without "PASS"). This is a safe default.
-- **Edge case**: A verdict with `## Status: PASS` and "FAIL" in body correctly returns `complete` — the structured parse only looks at the status line.
-
-## Verdict
-APPROVED — no issues found.

tasks/fix-verdict-pass-inference/DOC_REVIEW.md

@@ -1,12 +0,0 @@
-# Doc Review: fix-verdict-pass-inference
-
-## Summary
-No documentation updates needed. The verdict parsing is an internal heuristic used only for pre-v2.0 task upgrades.
-
-## Findings
-- The `--upgrade` command is documented in AGENTS.md and README.md, but the inference logic itself is not documented.
-- The fix aligns `status.py` with the dashboard's `parse_verdict_status()` — no API change.
-- No user-facing behavior change for v2.0 tasks (which use `.state` files, not artifact inference).
-
-## Verdict
-No doc changes required.

tasks/fix-verdict-pass-inference/IMPLEMENTATION.md

@@ -1,8 +0,0 @@
-# Implementation: fix-verdict-pass-inference
-
-## Changes
-- **scripts/status.py**: Added `_parse_verdict_status_line()` helper (~line 301) that parses `## Status:` and `- **Status**:` header lines for PASS/FAIL/NEEDS_REVIEW, mirroring the dashboard's `parse_verdict_status()`.
-- **scripts/status.py** `_infer_state_from_artifacts()` (~line 326): Replaced `if "PASS" in content:` substring search with structured-line parsing via `_parse_verdict_status_line()`. Returns `"complete"` only for exact PASS, `"human_intervention"` for FAIL/NEEDS_REVIEW, and falls back to `"human_intervention"` for unparseable verdicts.
-
-## Test
-- `tests/test_status.py::TestVerdictPassInference` — 3 tests: FAIL with "PASS" in body → human_intervention, PASS → complete, NEEDS_REVIEW → human_intervention.

tasks/fix-verdict-pass-inference/SPEC.md

@@ -1,15 +0,0 @@
-# Spec: fix-verdict-pass-inference
-
-## Problem
-`_infer_state_from_artifacts()` in `scripts/status.py:311` uses `if "PASS" in content:` (substring search) to determine if a VERDICT.md is PASS. A FAIL or NEEDS_REVIEW verdict containing "PASS" in its body (e.g., "All unit tests PASS") is misclassified as `complete`.
-
-The dashboard's `parse_verdict_status()` (`automaton/dashboard/core/task.py:63`) already has the correct structured-line parsing — status.py should use the same approach.
-
-## Fix
-Replace the substring check at `scripts/status.py:311` with structured-line parsing: look for `## Status:` or `- **Status**:` header lines and check the value after the colon. Return `"complete"` only for exact `PASS` match, `"human_intervention"` for `FAIL`/`NEEDS_REVIEW`, and keep the current fallback for unparseable verdicts.
-
-## Acceptance Criteria
-- A VERDICT.md with `## Status: FAIL` and "tests PASS" in the body is classified as `human_intervention`, not `complete`
-- A VERDICT.md with `## Status: PASS` is classified as `complete`
-- A VERDICT.md with no parseable status header falls through to the current behavior
-- Add a test in `tests/test_status.py` covering the FAIL-with-PASS-in-body case

tasks/fix-verdict-pass-inference/VERDICT.md

@@ -1,27 +0,0 @@
-# Verdict: fix-verdict-pass-inference
-
-## Status: PASS
-**Completion Date**: 2026-06-22
-
-## Summary
-The fix replaces fragile substring search with structured-line parsing, aligning status.py with the dashboard's existing approach. One Low-severity edge case noted but consistent with dashboard behavior.
-
-## Findings
-- `_parse_verdict_status_line()` correctly parses `## Status:` and `- **Status**:` header lines.
-- Bug Finder noted a Low-severity edge case: `label in after_colon.upper()` is a substring match within the status value (e.g., "FAILURE" matches "FAIL"). This is consistent with the dashboard's `parse_verdict_status()` and not a practical issue since verdict statuses are always exactly "PASS", "FAIL", or "NEEDS_REVIEW".
-- Adversarial Bug Finder confirmed no additional issues.
-- No contradictions between the two reports.
-- Test coverage added: `TestVerdictPassInference` (3 tests).
-- All 242 tests pass.
-
-## Tasks for Review / Tie-Breaks
-None.
-
-## Remaining Issues
-- Low-severity substring match within status value (noted in bug report, consistent with dashboard, not blocking).
-
-## Score
-+10 (PASS)
-
-## Reviewer Comments
-