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/proposed/feature/2026-06-30-pre-tool-input-rewrite.md

@@ -1,10 +1,8 @@
 # RFC: Pre-tool input rewrite — a consistent design
 
-Status: proposed (2026-06-30)
+Status: proposed
 
-<!-- XXX: legacy ADR/RFC body format, not yet normalized to a unified RFC template. -->
-
-## Context
+## Problem
 
 The [interception-seams RFC](../../implemented/feature/2026-06-30-interception-seams.md) added `tools/pre-execute` returning a `PreToolDecision` (allow/deny/ask) — but deliberately NOT input rewrite (a hook changing a tool call's `arguments` before it runs). Claude Code's `PreToolUse` hook offers an `updatedInput`, so a faithful CC bridge wants the same. This RFC designs that, separately, because doing it consistently is a real problem — not a field to bolt onto the allow decision.
 
@@ -18,9 +16,9 @@ In the loop, a tool call's arguments are committed to the log and read by live c
 
 So an "input rewrite" that changes ONLY what executes would make the UI show one command while another RAN, and render result state against the wrong arguments — a real inconsistency, not a documentable gap. (The existing low-level capability to mutate `exec.arguments` in a listener has exactly this latent inconsistency; it is unadvertised precisely because of this — yet not unused: a tool-bash integration test rewrites a scripted call's arguments through it (`packages/bash/tool-bash/tests/integration.spec.ts`), so this design must either sanction that path with the consistency unit below or seal it — `readonly` arguments at the seam, with the test shim moved onto a behavior-level helper.)
 
-## Proposed design (sketch — to validate against the code when built)
+## Proposal
 
-Treat input rewrite as a consistency unit: when a `pre-execute` hook supplies `updatedInput`, the rewrite must be reflected in ALL three readers, atomically, before execution:
+A sketch, to validate against the code when built. Treat input rewrite as a consistency unit: when a `pre-execute` hook supplies `updatedInput`, the rewrite must be reflected in ALL three readers, atomically, before execution:
 
 - The `tool/call` audit event records the REWRITTEN arguments (with the original retained in a sidecar field for the audit trail — a hook changed the call, and both the original and the effective arguments are facts worth keeping).
 - The `assistant/message` in derived history must agree with what executed — options to evaluate: rewrite the assistant message's tool-call block in place (changes what the model "sees it said"), or record a separate correction the next request carries. The CC model is that the model sees the rewrite took effect.
@@ -28,10 +26,23 @@ Treat input rewrite as a consistency unit: when a `pre-execute` hook supplies `u
 
 The shape would extend `PreToolDecision` with an allow-variant `arguments` (or a dedicated `{kind:'rewrite', arguments}`), and the loop would thread the rewrite through the three readers above rather than only into `ctx.tools.execute()`.
 
-## Why not now
+## Alternatives considered
+
+### Why not now
 
 The interception-seams RFC notes input rewrite "fought the code across two review rounds" — the signal AGENTS.md names for an over-reaching change. Shipping allow/deny/ask first keeps the seam honest (no advertised contract that silently desyncs the UI), and a CC/Codex bridge that receives an `updatedInput` logs it and surfaces a faithful-but-degraded warning (like `ask`→deny) until this lands. This RFC is the home for the consistent design; `TODO(pre-tool-input-rewrite)` in the loop's pre-execute call site anchors it.
 
+## Acceptance criteria
+
+- A `pre-execute` rewrite is reflected in all three readers atomically before execution: the `tool/call` audit records the rewritten arguments (the original retained in a sidecar field), derived history agrees with what executed, and presentation renders the rewritten arguments.
+- The unadvertised `exec.arguments` mutation path is either sanctioned by this consistency unit or sealed (`readonly` arguments at the seam, the test shim moved onto a behavior-level helper).
+- The CC/Codex bridges honor `updatedInput` instead of logging the faithful-but-degraded warning.
+
+## Risks
+
+- Rewriting the `assistant/message` tool-call block changes what the model "sees it said"; whether any provider rejects that on replay is the open question that must be settled empirically before the decision shape freezes.
+- Until this lands, the unadvertised mutation path keeps its latent UI-desync inconsistency.
+
 ## Open questions
 
 - Does rewriting the `assistant/message` tool-call block corrupt any provider's expectation on replay, or is a separate correction safer?