docs(rfc): define and enforce a uniform RFC format; adopt it across the corpus

Define the in-file RFC contract in docs/rfc/README.md § The file format:
the header block (`# RFC: <title>` plus a dateless Status enum
cross-checked against the lifecycle folder), the per-lifecycle body
skeleton (a Problem opener everywhere; Proposal/Alternatives considered/
Acceptance criteria/Risks in proposed/; present-tense Decision/
Consequences with proposal-era headings banned in implemented/; the
frozen proposal shape in rejected/), and a mandatory Alternatives
considered section with a date-fenced grandfather comment for pre-format
RFCs whose alternatives are not reconstructible from the record.

Enforce it with a new doc-sync gate, scripts/verify-rfc-format.ts, and
normalize all 112 RFCs to it: ~15 Status-line spellings collapse to the
enum, 29 Context openers become Problem, the 39 legacy-format XXX debt
markers are resolved and banned from reappearing, proposal-era sections
in implemented RFCs are rewritten to shipped reality (including the
web/fs/subagent seam RFCs' migration plans and test checklists, closing
the doc-tiers deferred-work item on the web seam), every RFC gains an
Alternatives considered section or the grandfather comment, and the
bilingual pair is re-mirrored and re-recorded.

Move the generated index tables out of README.md into a fully generated
docs/rfc/INDEX.md — gen-rfc-index now writes the whole file, and
verify-rfc-classification checks its freshness and rejects index-shaped
rows in the curated README — which makes room for the format contract to
live in the README front door instead of a separate FORMAT.md.

The decision record, and the first RFC written in the new format, is
docs/rfc/implemented/process/2026-07-05-uniform-rfc-format.md.

docs/rfc/implemented/architecture/2026-06-13-capability-seams.md

@@ -1,10 +1,8 @@
 # RFC: Capability seams — interface / implementation / consumer split
 
-Status: implemented (accepted 2026-06-13)
+Status: implemented
 
-<!-- XXX: legacy ADR/RFC body format, not yet normalized to a unified RFC template. -->
-
-## Context
+## Problem
 
 The harness has swappable capabilities — bash execution today, sandboxed/remote executors and alternative model providers tomorrow. A capability has three concerns that change at different rates and for different reasons: the *contract* (what the capability is), the *implementation* (how it runs), and the *consumer surface* (what the model and other plugins program against). Bundling them in one package couples those rates of change — swapping a local executor for a sandboxed one would churn the tool schemas the model sees, even though the model-facing contract never changed.
 
@@ -20,10 +18,13 @@ A swappable capability is **three packages**:
 
 Implementation and consumer then evolve independently: a sandboxed executor replaces `dsh-bash-local` without touching a tool schema.
 
-Alternatives considered: **one combined package** — rejected because it recouples the three rates of change the split exists to separate (the whole point). **`@cordisjs/plugin-capability`** — a different axis entirely: it is a permission/capability-*security* service (named permissions with inheritance, tested against a session via `ctx.capability.test`), a candidate for the deferred permissions/sandbox work on the `tools/pre-execute` deny/ask seam, NOT a mechanism for swapping implementations. Confusing the two ("capability") is the trap this RFC names.
-
 The split is not mandatory when the parts are genuinely one concern: the LLM seam folds interface + consumer into `dsh-llm` (the consumer is the loop itself, not a swappable schema surface) with adapters as the implementation packages. Don't split preemptively — a capability with one conceivable implementation and one consumer stays one package until a second appears.
 
+## Alternatives considered
+
+- **One combined package** — rejected because it recouples the three rates of change the split exists to separate (the whole point).
+- **`@cordisjs/plugin-capability`** — a different axis entirely: it is a permission/capability-*security* service (named permissions with inheritance, tested against a session via `ctx.capability.test`), a candidate for the deferred permissions/sandbox work on the `tools/pre-execute` deny/ask seam, NOT a mechanism for swapping implementations. Confusing the two ("capability") is the trap this RFC names.
+
 ## Consequences
 
 More packages and more boilerplate per capability (a `package.json`/`tsconfig`/README trio, the inject wiring). Bought: implementations and consumers ship and version independently, and a new backend never risks the model-facing contract. The rule is documented in [AGENTS.md](../../../../AGENTS.md) § Conventions ("Capability seams are three packages") and [architecture.md](../../../architecture.md) § "Capability seams"; the bash trio is the reference template. When to fold vs. split is a judgment call the architecture doc spells out — this RFC records *why* the default is to split.