fix: require exact package manifest names

docs/CURRENT_STATUS.md

@@ -100,6 +100,7 @@ Ready now:
 - project-name safety checks for `claro new`, so unsafe names such as `../bad` are rejected before Claro creates folders
 - package-name safety checks when adding packages, including the 64-character package-name limit, when `claro package doctor` audits an existing `claro.project`, when `claro package lock` writes lockfile data, when `claro package list` shows existing packages, when `claro package init` sees unsafe names already present in `claro.project`, when `claro package add` sees unsafe names already present in `claro.project`, when `claro package remove` refreshes the lockfile after an edit, when learners need to remove an unsafe package entry that is already present, when `claro package doctor` verifies lockfile checksums for listed packages, and when `claro package doctor` rejects lockfile package entries that are not listed in `claro.project`
 - `claro package doctor` rejects a listed package manifest whose `name:` does not match the package name in `claro.project`
+- `claro package doctor` compares the complete manifest `name:` value, so a prefix such as `math-tools-extra` cannot be accepted for package `math-tools`
 
 Still needed:
 - install from local path

docs/ROADMAP.md

@@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ See `CURRENT_STATUS.md` for the detailed feature matrix.
 2. Keep examples aligned with the modern simple syntax (`END`, `DO`, short `SET`, short `ASK`) while documenting older compatibility forms separately.
 3. Expand validation around typecheck diagnostics and package/networking safety. Current Forgejo/Gitea CI runs the documented release gates (`claro validate`, typecheck diagnostics validation, version convention validation, package security validation, and CI workflow coverage validation). Current package safety validation covers safe project creation, rejecting unsafe project names during `claro new`, safe manifest/lockfile creation, rejecting unsafe package names during `package add`, detecting unsafe package names already present in `claro.project` during `package doctor`, refusing to write lockfile data for unsafe package names during `package lock`, making `package list` fail instead of displaying unsafe package entries as normal package names, making `package init` fail instead of reporting the project ready when unsafe package names are already present, making `package add` fail before changing files when unsafe package names are already present, making `package remove` fail instead of reporting success when unsafe package names remain during lockfile refresh, allowing `package remove` to remove an exact unsafe package entry so learners can repair a bad `claro.project`, making `package doctor` reject stale lockfile checksums for listed packages, and making `package doctor` reject lockfile package entries that are not listed in `claro.project`. Current function validation covers correct checked calls, wrong-type arguments, missing checked-argument diagnostics, missing unchecked-argument diagnostics for simple functions in both modern `DO greet` and empty compatibility `CALL greet WITH` forms, extra-argument diagnostics, and beginner-facing unknown-function diagnostics for mistyped modern `DO` and compatibility `CALL ... WITH` calls; current object-method parameter validation covers correct modern `DO object.method ...` and compatibility `CALL object.method WITH ...` checked calls, wrong-type diagnostics for both call forms, checked methods after another method in the same class, missing and extra checked-argument diagnostics including the extra-argument case for a checked method after another method in the same class, missing unchecked-argument diagnostics for simple object methods, missing-object guidance when `DO player.method ...` or compatibility `CALL object.method WITH ...` appears before `NEW` even if the method name is also wrong, and class-specific unknown-method diagnostics for both modern and compatibility calls when a learner calls a method the class does not declare; current object-field validation covers direct NUMBER/TEXT/YESNO field-assignment positives, direct object-field `CHECK TYPE` metadata positives for NUMBER/TEXT/YESNO fields, negative NUMBER/TEXT/YESNO field metadata mismatches, NUMBER/TEXT/YESNO-expectation unknown-field `CHECK TYPE` diagnostics, direct wrong-type field assignment diagnostics, field collection when a `HAS` field appears after a simple method, direct unknown-field diagnostics for NUMBER/TEXT/YESNO values, a beginner-facing fallback for unknown fields assigned from expressions whose type is not inferable yet, and missing-object diagnostics for both `SET object.field value` and `CHECK TYPE object.field IS TYPE` before `NEW`.
 3a. Keep package validation honest by checking that each listed manifest declares the expected package name.
-3b. Keep package security validation in Forgejo/Gitea CI so unsafe names, manifest mismatches, missing manifests, and lockfile errors remain release blockers.
+3b. Keep package security validation in Forgejo/Gitea CI so unsafe names, exact manifest-name mismatches, missing manifests, and lockfile errors remain release blockers.
 4. Add small examples for each foundation feature before adding bigger syntax.
 
 ## Complete-platform milestones

docs/V1_16_PACKAGES_PROJECTS.md

@@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ source: local
 checksum: 1234abcd
 ```
 
-`claro.lock` records the release version, lock format, packages, and checksums so future registry work has a stable safety foundation. `claro package doctor` checks those lockfile checksums for listed packages and reports `BAD lock checksum: name` if the lockfile is stale or edited incorrectly. It also reports `BAD lock package not in claro.project: name` when the lockfile contains a package entry that is not listed in `claro.project`, so learners know to refresh the lockfile instead of trusting stale package data.
+`claro.lock` records the release version, lock format, packages, and checksums so future registry work has a stable safety foundation. `claro package doctor` checks those lockfile checksums for listed packages and reports `BAD lock checksum: name` if the lockfile is stale or edited incorrectly. It also reports `BAD lock package not in claro.project: name` when the lockfile contains a package entry that is not listed in `claro.project`, so learners know to refresh the lockfile instead of trusting stale package data. Package manifests must declare the complete expected `name:` value; a name that only starts with the package name is rejected as `BAD package manifest name: name`.
 
 ## Project-name safety