Acceptance Criteria
plan/specs/SPEC-048-design-tokens-contract.md mentions SPEC-056 in the appropriate place — either in the syntax tokens discussion or in a "Subsequent extensions" subsection near the end- The reference uses
{% ref "SPEC-056" /%} syntax so the plan validator catches link rot - One sentence is enough — this is a signpost, not a re-explanation. Example: "The optional syntax role set was widened in {% ref "SPEC-056" /%} to support importing well-known palettes; see that spec for the current
SyntaxTokens shape."
Approach
Trivial doc edit. Locate the section of SPEC-048 that introduces SyntaxTokens (around the "Highlighter is an implementation detail" principle) and add the pointer. Don't restate SPEC-056's content — just link.
Dependencies
None — SPEC-056 exists; no implementation dependency.
References
- SPEC-048 —
plan/specs/SPEC-048-design-tokens-contract.md - SPEC-056 —
plan/specs/SPEC-056-syntax-token-contract-extension.md
Resolution
Completed: 2026-05-20
Branch: `claude/spec-056-milestone-v0-14-1`
Added a one-paragraph cross-reference inside SPEC-048's "Highlighter is an implementation detail" design principle. The pointer covers all three of SPEC-056's extensions (syntax role widening, optional code-surface claim, scoped tint projection) so readers of SPEC-048 don't model their understanding on the original 9-role contract or the original tint vocabulary.