feat: add Explorer skip heuristic to plan-phase skill
This commit is contained in:
@@ -117,3 +117,19 @@ When the Creator receives structured feedback from a prior cycle, the proposal m
|
||||
- **Disputed:** Disagrees with the finding. Must provide evidence or reasoning.
|
||||
|
||||
CRITICAL findings cannot be deferred or disputed — they must be fixed or the proposal will be rejected again.
|
||||
|
||||
## Explorer Skip Conditions
|
||||
|
||||
Not every task needs Explorer research. Use this decision table:
|
||||
|
||||
| Condition | Skip Explorer? | Reason |
|
||||
|-----------|---------------|--------|
|
||||
| Task names specific files (1-2) and change is clear | **Yes** | Context is already known |
|
||||
| Bug fix with stack trace or error message | **Yes** | Root cause is locatable without research |
|
||||
| High confidence + small scope (single function/class) | **Yes** | Creator can mini-reflect instead |
|
||||
| Task contains "investigate", "research", "explore" | **No** | Explicit research request |
|
||||
| Task affects >3 files or unknown scope | **No** | Need dependency mapping |
|
||||
| Unfamiliar area of codebase (no recent commits by team) | **No** | Need pattern discovery |
|
||||
| Security-sensitive change (auth, crypto, input handling) | **No** | Need risk surface mapping |
|
||||
|
||||
When Explorer is skipped, Creator MUST include the **Mini-Reflect** section in its proposal to compensate for missing research context.
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user