fix(spec): list the five service-ai-studio tools the AI registry was omitting

`PLATFORM_TOOLS_BY_PACKAGE['service-ai-studio']` omitted five tools the cloud
AI runtime actually registers — `get_authoring_rules`, `load_tools`,
`open_record`, `test_flow` and `toggle_flow` — so under ADR-0109, where the
default authoring path declares no tool records at all, a skill naming any of
them resolved against nothing and was reported by `validate`/`lint` as a
FICTIONAL tool reference. That is the exact failure the registry exists to end.

Added in the list's existing alphabetical order (verified: both groups were in
fact sorted before this change, and the package's own shape test pins it).
Nothing else in the registry moves.

The pin lives in `packages/lint`, where "refused" and "accepted" are the
verdicts: the five now resolve, and a sixth name shaped like them and
registered by nobody is still reported — the control, without which the
widening pin cannot fail.

Fixes #16512

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016N6xmWt5hYm94ffVEwGH8x

Author: claude

.changeset/ai-studio-five-registered-tool-names.md

@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+---
+"@objectstack/spec": patch
+---
+
+`PLATFORM_TOOLS_BY_PACKAGE['service-ai-studio']` lists the five tools the cloud AI runtime registers that it had been omitting: `get_authoring_rules`, `load_tools`, `open_record`, `test_flow` and `toggle_flow`. Added in the list's existing alphabetical order; nothing else in the registry moves.
+
+The omission was not cosmetic. `PLATFORM_PROVIDED_TOOL_NAMES` is the load-bearing half of `skill.tools[]` reference integrity under ADR-0109 — the default third-party authoring path declares no tool records at all, so a `skill.tools[]` entry resolves against this registry or against the materialised `action_<name>` family and against nothing else. While these five were absent, a skill naming any of them was reported by `validate` / `lint` as a **fictional** tool reference (`ai-skill-tool-unresolved`), which is precisely the failure the registry was created to end. Five previously-refused references are now accepted; a name registered by nobody is still refused.
+
+The module's own maintenance contract already said why an omission is worse than no registry at all — "an out-of-date registry is worse than no registry, because consumers now trust it" — and a second consumer had already paid for it: `@objectstack/mcp` gives a listed name `openWorldHint: false`, and the Studio's tool-step labels read the same set.
+
+This is the data half only. Making the owning package's conformance test **derive** the union from what `plugin.ts` actually registers, instead of restating it, is tracked separately in the cloud repository; re-copying the list correctly resets the clock rather than stopping it.

packages/lint/src/validate-ai-tool-references.test.ts

@@ -159,6 +159,33 @@ describe('validate-ai-tool-references', () => {
     expect(validateAiToolReferences(stack)).toEqual([]);
   });
 
+  /**
+   * [#16512] The five `service-ai-studio` tools the cloud runtime registers
+   * that the registry did not list.
+   *
+   * `PLATFORM_PROVIDED_TOOL_NAMES` is the load-bearing half of
+   * `skill.tools[]` reference integrity under ADR-0109, so while these five
+   * were absent a skill naming any of them was reported as a FICTIONAL tool —
+   * the precise failure the registry exists to end. The pin lives here, not
+   * beside the constant: "refused" and "accepted" are this rule's verdicts,
+   * and the list's own file can only pin its shape.
+   */
+  it('resolves the five service-ai-studio tools the registry was missing (#16512)', () => {
+    const five = ['test_flow', 'toggle_flow', 'get_authoring_rules', 'load_tools', 'open_record'];
+    expect(validateAiToolReferences({ skills: [{ name: 's', tools: five }] })).toEqual([]);
+
+    // The control, without which this pin cannot fail: a sixth name shaped
+    // exactly like the five and registered by nobody is STILL reported. A
+    // universe widened until everything resolves would pass the assertion
+    // above and fail this one.
+    const control = validateAiToolReferences({
+      skills: [{ name: 's', tools: [...five, 'archive_flow'] }],
+    });
+    expect(control).toHaveLength(1);
+    expect(control[0].path).toBe('skills[0].tools[5]');
+    expect(control[0].message).toContain('archive_flow');
+  });
+
   it('reports stable paths and tolerates junk shapes', () => {
     const stack = {
       skills: [{ name: 's', tools: ['query_records', 'nope_tool'] }],

packages/spec/src/system/constants/platform-tool-names.ts

@@ -65,16 +65,21 @@ export const PLATFORM_TOOLS_BY_PACKAGE: Readonly<Record<string, readonly string[
     'describe_metadata',
     'describe_object',
     'get_active_package',
+    'get_authoring_rules',
     'get_metadata_schema',
     'get_package',
     'list_metadata',
     'list_objects',
     'list_packages',
+    'load_tools',
     'modify_field',
+    'open_record',
     'propose_blueprint',
     'set_active_package',
     'suggest_builder',
+    'test_flow',
     'todo_write',
+    'toggle_flow',
     'update_metadata',
     'validate_expression',
     'verify_build',