c/claude-archeflow-plugin
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

refactor: consolidate run skill — merge 8 skills into one self-contained PDCA orchestrator

Browse Source 
Merge run + orchestration + plan-phase + do-phase + artifact-routing + process-log +
attention-filters + convergence + effectiveness into a single 459-line run/SKILL.md.

Before: run skill (890 lines) + 3 prerequisites (~1,300 lines) = ~2,200 lines of context.
After: one self-contained skill (459 lines) with zero prerequisites.

Preserved: PDCA flow, workflow selection, adaptation rules A1-A3, agent prompts,
attention filters, feedback routing, convergence detection, effectiveness scoring,
shadow monitoring, pipeline strategy, event reference, artifact naming.

Removed: verbose bash code blocks, shell variable tracking, resolve_model() function,
lib validation loops, evidence validation bash, redundant event emission blocks.
This commit is contained in:
Christian Nennemann
2026-04-06 20:44:46 +02:00
parent 55de51aabe
commit c8bd55d97c
8 changed files with 304 additions and 2753 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

289
skills/artifact-routing/SKILL.md
View File

@@ -1,289 +0,0 @@
---
name: artifact-routing
description: |
Inter-phase artifact protocol for ArcheFlow runs. Defines how artifacts are named, stored,
routed between agents, and archived across PDCA cycles. Ensures each agent receives exactly
the context it needs — no more, no less.
<example>Automatically loaded by archeflow:run</example>
<example>User: "What does the Maker receive as context?"</example>
---
# Artifact Routing — Inter-Phase Context Protocol
Every ArcheFlow run produces artifacts — research notes, proposals, diffs, reviews, feedback. This skill defines how those artifacts are named, where they live, what each agent receives, and how they are preserved across cycles.
## Artifact Directory Structure
```
.archeflow/artifacts/<run_id>/
├── plan-explorer.md # Explorer research output
├── plan-creator.md # Creator proposal/outline
├── do-maker.md # Maker implementation summary
├── do-maker-files.txt # List of files created/modified (one path per line)
├── check-guardian.md # Guardian review verdict + findings
├── check-sage.md # Sage review (if present)
├── check-skeptic.md # Skeptic review (if present)
├── check-trickster.md # Trickster review (if present)
├── act-feedback.md # Structured feedback for next cycle (Cycle Feedback Protocol)
├── act-fixes.jsonl # Applied fixes log (one JSON line per fix)
├── cycle-1/ # Archived artifacts from cycle 1
│ ├── plan-explorer.md
│ ├── plan-creator.md
│ ├── do-maker.md
│ ├── do-maker-files.txt
│ ├── check-guardian.md
│ ├── check-sage.md
│ └── act-feedback.md
└── cycle-2/ # Archived artifacts from cycle 2 (if cycle 3 starts)
└── ...
```
## Naming Convention
Artifacts follow the pattern: `<phase>-<agent>.<ext>`
| Phase | Agent | Filename | Format |
|-------|-------|----------|--------|
| plan | explorer | `plan-explorer.md` | Markdown research report |
| plan | creator | `plan-creator.md` | Markdown proposal with confidence scores |
| plan | mini-explorer | `plan-mini-explorer.md` | Focused risk research (only if confidence gate triggers) |
| do | maker | `do-maker.md` | Markdown implementation summary |
| do | maker | `do-maker-files.txt` | Plain text, one file path per line |
| check | guardian | `check-guardian.md` | Markdown verdict + findings table |
| check | sage | `check-sage.md` | Markdown verdict + findings table |
| check | skeptic | `check-skeptic.md` | Markdown verdict + findings table |
| check | trickster | `check-trickster.md` | Markdown verdict + findings table |
| act | (orchestrator) | `act-feedback.md` | Structured feedback (see Cycle Feedback Protocol) |
| act | (orchestrator) | `act-fixes.jsonl` | JSONL fix log |
**Rule:** Never invent new artifact names during a run. If a reviewer is skipped (A2 fast-path, reviewer profile), its artifact simply does not exist. Downstream phases check for file existence before reading.
---
## Context Injection Rules
Each agent receives a filtered subset of artifacts. This is the **attention filter** — it controls what context is injected into the agent's prompt.
### Plan Phase
| Agent | Receives | Does NOT receive |
|-------|----------|-----------------|
| **Explorer** | Task description, relevant file paths, codebase access | Prior proposals, review outputs, implementation details |
| **Creator** (cycle 1) | Task description, `plan-explorer.md` (if exists) | Raw file contents (Explorer summarized them), git diffs |
| **Creator** (cycle 2+) | Task description, `plan-explorer.md`, `act-feedback.md` (Creator-routed findings only) | Raw reviewer outputs, Maker-routed findings |
**Creator context injection template (cycle 2+):**
```markdown
## Task
<task description>
## Research (from Explorer)
<contents of plan-explorer.md>
## Feedback from Prior Cycle
<Creator-routed section of act-feedback.md only>
Note: Address each unresolved issue listed above. Explain how your revised proposal resolves it.
```
### Do Phase
| Agent | Receives | Does NOT receive |
|-------|----------|-----------------|
| **Maker** (cycle 1) | `plan-creator.md` (the proposal), `plan-mini-explorer.md` (if exists) | `plan-explorer.md`, reviewer outputs, raw task description |
| **Maker** (cycle 2+) | `plan-creator.md`, `plan-mini-explorer.md` (if exists), Maker-routed findings from `act-feedback.md` | Explorer research, Guardian/Skeptic findings (those went to Creator) |
**Maker context injection template (cycle 2+):**
```markdown
## Proposal
<contents of plan-creator.md>
## Implementation Feedback from Prior Cycle
<Maker-routed section of act-feedback.md only>
Note: The proposal has been revised to address design-level issues. Focus on the implementation
feedback items above (code quality, test gaps, consistency).
```
**Why Maker doesn't get Explorer output:** The Creator already distilled Explorer's research into a concrete proposal. Giving Maker raw research causes scope creep and "Rogue" shadow activation.
### Check Phase
| Agent | Receives | Does NOT receive |
|-------|----------|-----------------|
| **Guardian** | Maker's git diff, risk section from `plan-creator.md` | Full proposal, Explorer research, other reviewer outputs |
| **Skeptic** | `plan-creator.md` (assumptions focus) | Git diff details, Explorer research, other reviewer outputs |
| **Sage** | `plan-creator.md`, Maker's git diff, `do-maker.md` | Explorer research, other reviewer outputs |
| **Trickster** | Maker's git diff only | Everything else |
**Guardian context injection template:**
```markdown
## Changes to Review
<git diff from Maker's branch>
## Risk Assessment (from proposal)
<risks section extracted from plan-creator.md>
Review these changes for security, reliability, breaking changes, and dependency risks.
```
**Skeptic context injection template:**
```markdown
## Proposal to Challenge
<contents of plan-creator.md>
Focus on assumptions, alternatives not considered, edge cases, and scalability.
```
**Sage context injection template:**
```markdown
## Proposal
<contents of plan-creator.md>
## Implementation Summary
<contents of do-maker.md>
## Changes
<git diff from Maker's branch>
Evaluate code quality, test coverage, documentation, and codebase consistency.
```
**Trickster context injection template:**
```markdown
## Changes to Attack
<git diff from Maker's branch>
Try to break this. Malformed input, boundaries, concurrency, error paths, dependency failures.
```
### Act Phase
No agents are spawned in Act. The orchestrator reads all `check-*.md` artifacts directly.
---
## Feedback Routing
> **This is the canonical routing table.** Other skills (orchestration, act-phase) must match this table exactly. When updating routing rules, update this table first, then sync the others.
When building `act-feedback.md` after the Check phase, route each finding to the right agent for the next cycle:
| Finding Source | Finding Category | Routes To | Rationale |
|---------------|-----------------|-----------|-----------|
| Guardian | security, breaking-change | **Creator** | Design must change |
| Guardian | reliability, dependency | **Creator** | Architectural decision needed |
| Skeptic | design, scalability | **Creator** | Assumptions need revision |
| Sage | quality, consistency | **Maker** | Implementation refinement |
| Sage | testing | **Maker** | Test gap, not design flaw |
| Trickster | reliability (design flaw) | **Creator** | Needs redesign |
| Trickster | reliability (test gap) | **Maker** | Needs more tests |
| Trickster | testing | **Maker** | Edge case not covered |
**Disambiguation rule:** When in doubt: if the fix requires changing the approach, route to Creator. If it requires changing the code within the existing approach, route to Maker.
### Feedback File Format
`act-feedback.md` is split into two sections so each agent can be given only its portion:
```markdown
# Cycle <N> Feedback
## Creator-Routed Issues
| # | Source | Severity | Category | Issue | Suggested Fix |
|---|--------|----------|----------|-------|---------------|
| 1 | Guardian | CRITICAL | security | SQL injection in user input | Add parameterized queries |
| 2 | Skeptic | WARNING | design | Assumes single-tenant only | Add tenant isolation |
## Maker-Routed Issues
| # | Source | Severity | Category | Issue | Suggested Fix |
|---|--------|----------|----------|-------|---------------|
| 3 | Sage | WARNING | quality | Test names don't describe behavior | Rename to describe expected outcome |
| 4 | Sage | INFO | consistency | Import order doesn't match codebase style | Re-order imports |
## Resolved (from prior cycles)
| # | Source | Issue | Resolution | Resolved In |
|---|--------|-------|------------|-------------|
| 1 | Guardian | Missing rate limit | Added rate limiter middleware | Cycle 1 |
## Convergence Warnings
<any finding that appeared unresolved in 2+ consecutive cycles — requires user input>
```
When injecting feedback into Creator's prompt, include **only** the "Creator-Routed Issues" section.
When injecting feedback into Maker's prompt, include **only** the "Maker-Routed Issues" section.
---
## Cycle Archiving
When a PDCA cycle completes and a new cycle begins, archive the current artifacts so they are preserved and the working directory is clean for the next iteration.
### Archive Procedure
At the end of each cycle (before starting the next):
```bash
RUN_DIR=".archeflow/artifacts/${RUN_ID}"
ARCHIVE_DIR="${RUN_DIR}/cycle-${CYCLE}"
mkdir -p "$ARCHIVE_DIR"
# Copy all phase artifacts to archive
cp "${RUN_DIR}"/plan-*.md "$ARCHIVE_DIR/" 2>/dev/null || true
cp "${RUN_DIR}"/do-*.md "$ARCHIVE_DIR/" 2>/dev/null || true
cp "${RUN_DIR}"/do-*.txt "$ARCHIVE_DIR/" 2>/dev/null || true
cp "${RUN_DIR}"/check-*.md "$ARCHIVE_DIR/" 2>/dev/null || true
cp "${RUN_DIR}"/act-feedback.md "$ARCHIVE_DIR/" 2>/dev/null || true
```
**Do NOT delete** the working-level artifacts after archiving. The next cycle's agents need `act-feedback.md` and `plan-explorer.md` (Explorer cache may reuse prior research). Old artifacts in the working directory get overwritten when the new cycle's agents produce their outputs.
### Archive Access
Archived artifacts are read-only references. Use them for:
- **Resolution tracking:** Compare `cycle-1/check-guardian.md` findings against `cycle-2/check-guardian.md` to detect resolved/persisting issues
- **Convergence detection:** Same finding in `cycle-N/act-feedback.md` and `cycle-N+1/act-feedback.md` → escalate to user
- **Post-hoc analysis:** Understanding how a solution evolved across cycles
---
## Artifact Existence Checks
Before injecting an artifact into an agent's context, always check if the file exists. Missing artifacts are expected in certain workflows:
| Artifact | Missing when |
|----------|-------------|
| `plan-explorer.md` | Fast workflow (no Explorer) |
| `plan-mini-explorer.md` | Confidence gate did not trigger for risk coverage |
| `check-skeptic.md` | Fast workflow, or A2 fast-path taken |
| `check-sage.md` | Fast workflow, or A2 fast-path taken |
| `check-trickster.md` | Non-thorough workflow, or A2 fast-path taken |
| `act-feedback.md` | Cycle 1 (no prior feedback exists) |
| `act-fixes.jsonl` | Cycle 1, or no fixes applied |
**Rule:** Never fail because an optional artifact is missing. Check existence, skip injection if absent, and note what was skipped in the event data.
---
## Git Diff as Artifact
The Maker's git diff is not saved as a file — it is generated on-the-fly from the Maker's worktree branch:
```bash
git diff main...<maker-branch>
```
This ensures reviewers always see the actual current diff, not a stale snapshot. The diff is injected directly into reviewer prompts, not saved to disk.
Exception: `do-maker-files.txt` IS saved to disk (just the file list, not the full diff) for quick reference by the orchestrator and for archiving purposes.
---
## Design Principles
1. **Minimal context per agent.** Each agent gets only what it needs. Over-injection causes distraction, shadow activation, and wasted tokens.
2. **Artifacts are the handoff mechanism.** Agents never communicate directly. All inter-agent data flows through saved artifacts.
3. **Files over memory.** Everything is on disk. If a session crashes, artifacts survive. A `--start-from` resume reads artifacts, not session state.
4. **Overwrite, don't accumulate.** Working-level artifacts get overwritten each cycle. Archives preserve history. This keeps the working directory simple.
5. **Check before inject.** Always verify artifact existence. Gracefully handle missing optional artifacts.

249
skills/convergence/SKILL.md
View File

@@ -1,249 +0,0 @@
---
name: convergence
description: |
Detects convergence, stalling, and oscillation in multi-cycle PDCA runs. Prevents wasted cycles
by stopping early when findings are not being resolved or are bouncing between cycles.
<example>Automatically loaded during Act phase before exit decision</example>
<example>User: "Is the run converging?"</example>
---
# Convergence Detection
In multi-cycle PDCA runs, the Act phase must decide whether another cycle will help or just waste tokens. This skill provides the analysis: are findings being resolved (converging), staying the same (stalling), or bouncing back (oscillating)?
## When It Runs
Convergence analysis runs **after the Check phase completes and before the Act phase exit decision**. It requires at least 2 cycles of data — on cycle 1, it is skipped (no comparison baseline).
```
Check phase → Convergence Analysis → Act phase exit decision
```
---
## Step 1: Finding Comparison
Extract findings from the current cycle and compare against the previous cycle.
### Data Sources
- **Current cycle findings:** Parsed from `check-*.md` artifacts in `.archeflow/artifacts/<run_id>/`
- **Previous cycle findings:** Parsed from `check-*.md` artifacts in `.archeflow/artifacts/<run_id>/cycle-<N-1>/`
Each finding is identified by a composite key: `source + category + file_location + description_keywords`.
### Finding Categories
Every finding from the current cycle is classified into exactly one category:
| Category | Definition |
|----------|------------|
| **NEW** | Finding not present in any previous cycle |
| **RESOLVED** | Was present in the previous cycle, absent in the current cycle |
| **PERSISTENT** | Present in both the current and previous cycle (same key) |
| **REGRESSED** | Was RESOLVED in the previous cycle (was present in N-2, absent in N-1), but returned in the current cycle |
### Matching Algorithm
Two findings match if:
1. Same `source` archetype (guardian, sage, etc.)
2. Same `category` (security, reliability, quality, etc.)
3. Same or overlapping file location (same file, line within 10 lines)
4. 50%+ keyword overlap in description (lowercase, strip punctuation)
All four conditions must hold. This prevents false matches across unrelated findings.
---
## Step 2: Convergence Score
Calculate a convergence score from the categorized findings:
```
convergence = resolved_count / (resolved_count + new_count + regressed_count)
```
If the denominator is 0 (no resolved, no new, no regressed — only persistent), the score is `0.0` (stalled, not converging).
### Score Interpretation
| Score Range | Status | Meaning |
|-------------|--------|---------|
| > 0.8 | **Converging** | Most issues being resolved, few new ones introduced |
| 0.5 - 0.8 | **Stalling** | Fixing roughly as many as introducing |
| < 0.5 | **Diverging** | Making things worse — more new/regressed than resolved |
| 0.0 (all persistent) | **Stuck** | No progress in either direction |
---
## Step 3: Oscillation Detection
An oscillating finding is one that bounces between resolved and re-introduced across cycles:
1. Finding was present in cycle N-2
2. Finding was absent in cycle N-1 (resolved)
3. Finding is present again in cycle N (regressed)
This indicates the fix in cycle N-1 was undone or invalidated by other changes in cycle N.
### Oscillation Rules
- A single oscillating finding: **flag it** in the convergence report but continue.
- Two or more oscillating findings: **STOP** and escalate to the user.
- Message: `"Findings X and Y are oscillating between cycles. Manual intervention needed — the automated fixes are interfering with each other."`
Oscillation tracking requires 3+ cycles of data. On cycles 1-2, oscillation detection is skipped.
---
## Step 4: Early Termination Rules
The convergence analysis can override the normal Act phase exit decision. If any of these conditions hold, the recommendation is **STOP**:
| Condition | Threshold | Recommendation |
|-----------|-----------|----------------|
| Diverging | Score < 0.5 for 2 consecutive cycles | STOP — changes are making things worse |
| Stalled | 0 findings resolved between cycles | STOP — no progress, further cycles will not help |
| Stuck | All findings are PERSISTENT for 2 consecutive cycles | STOP — automated fixes cannot resolve these |
| Oscillating | 2+ findings oscillating | STOP — fixes are interfering with each other |
When STOP is recommended, the Act phase should:
1. **Not** start another PDCA cycle
2. Report all unresolved findings to the user
3. Present the best implementation so far (on its branch, not merged)
4. Include the convergence report explaining why the run was stopped
### Override Behavior
The convergence STOP recommendation overrides the normal cycle-back logic in the Act phase. Even if `CYCLE < MAX_CYCLES` and there are fixable-looking findings, if convergence says STOP, the run stops.
The user can always override by explicitly requesting another cycle: `"Run one more cycle anyway"`.
---
## Step 5: Integration with Act Phase
### Event Data
Convergence data is included in the `cycle.boundary` event emitted by the Act phase:
```json
{
"type": "cycle.boundary",
"phase": "act",
"data": {
"cycle": 2,
"max_cycles": 3,
"exit_condition": "convergence_stop",
"met": false,
"fixes_applied": 2,
"next_action": "stop",
"convergence": {
"score": 0.35,
"status": "diverging",
"resolved": 1,
"new": 2,
"regressed": 1,
"persistent": 3,
"oscillating": ["Timeline reference mismatch"],
"recommendation": "stop",
"reason": "Diverging for 2 consecutive cycles"
}
}
}
```
### Decision Tree Update
The Act phase decision tree (from `act-phase` skill Step 4) gains a new first branch:
```
┌─ Convergence analysis (cycle 2+)
│
├─ Convergence says STOP
│ └─ STOP: Report to user with convergence report
│
├─ Convergence says CONTINUE
│ └─ Fall through to normal exit decision logic
│
└─ Cycle 1 (no convergence data)
└─ Fall through to normal exit decision logic
```
### Act Feedback Enhancement
When the Act phase builds `act-feedback.md` for the next cycle, it includes the convergence summary at the top:
```markdown
## Convergence Analysis (Cycle 1 → 2)
Score: 0.75 (converging)
Resolved: 3 | New: 1 | Regressed: 0 | Persistent: 2
Recommendation: Continue — trend is positive
### Finding Status
| Finding | Status | Cycles |
|---------|--------|--------|
| SQL injection in user input | RESOLVED | 1 |
| Missing rate limit | RESOLVED | 1 |
| Test names unclear | RESOLVED | 1 |
| Null check missing in parser | PERSISTENT | 2 |
| Error path not tested | PERSISTENT | 2 |
| New: Unused import introduced | NEW | 1 |
```
---
## Convergence Report Format
The full convergence report is generated as part of the orchestration output:
```markdown
## Convergence Analysis (Cycle N-1 → N)
**Score:** 0.75 (converging)
**Resolved:** 3 | **New:** 1 | **Regressed:** 0 | **Persistent:** 2 | **Oscillating:** 0
### Resolved This Cycle
| Source | Category | Description |
|--------|----------|-------------|
| guardian | security | SQL injection in user input handler |
| guardian | reliability | Missing rate limit on auth endpoint |
| sage | quality | Test names don't describe behavior |
### New This Cycle
| Source | Category | Description |
|--------|----------|-------------|
| sage | quality | Unused import introduced by fix |
### Persistent (unresolved across cycles)
| Source | Category | Description | Cycles Open |
|--------|----------|-------------|-------------|
| trickster | reliability | Null check missing in parser | 2 |
| sage | testing | Error path not tested | 2 |
### Oscillating
(none)
**Recommendation:** Continue — trend is positive
```
---
## Integration with Memory Skill
When convergence detects PERSISTENT findings (present for 2+ cycles), these are strong candidates for the `memory` skill's lesson extraction:
- After a run that had persistent findings, `archeflow-memory.sh extract` will pick these up with higher confidence (they have been confirmed across multiple cycles within a single run).
- Persistent findings that also appear in `lessons.jsonl` from prior runs get a double frequency boost (cross-cycle within run + cross-run pattern).
---
## Design Principles
1. **Conservative stopping.** Requires 2 consecutive data points before recommending STOP. A single bad cycle might be noise.
2. **User has final say.** STOP is a recommendation, not an enforced shutdown. The user can override.
3. **Cheap computation.** Keyword matching on finding descriptions, simple arithmetic on counts. No ML, no embeddings.
4. **Bounded scope.** Only compares adjacent cycles (N vs N-1, with N-2 for oscillation). Does not attempt to model long-term trends across many cycles.
5. **Observable.** All convergence data is included in the `cycle.boundary` event, making it available for post-hoc analysis via the process log.

193
skills/do-phase/SKILL.md
View File

@@ -1,193 +0,0 @@
---
name: do-phase
description: Use when acting as Maker in the Do phase. Defines execution rules, worktree protocol, commit discipline, and output format.
---
# Do Phase
Maker implements the Creator's proposal. This skill defines the execution protocol — the agent definition (`agents/maker.md`) has the behavioral rules.
## Execution Protocol
### 1. Read Before Writing
Read the Creator's proposal completely. Identify:
- Files to create or modify (the `### Changes` section)
- Test strategy (the `### Test Strategy` section)
- Scope boundaries (the `### Not Doing` section)
If the proposal is unclear on any point: implement your best interpretation and note the assumption in your output.
### 2. Implementation Order
For each change in the proposal:
1. Write the test first (expect it to fail)
2. Implement the change (make the test pass)
3. Verify existing tests still pass
4. Commit with a descriptive message
For writing domain (stories, prose):
1. Read the outline / scene plan
2. Read the voice profile and character sheets
3. Draft scene by scene, following the outline's emotional beats
4. Self-check: does the voice hold? Does dialogue sound natural?
5. Commit after each scene or logical section
### 3. Commit Discipline
**CRITICAL: Always commit before finishing.** Uncommitted worktree changes are LOST when the agent exits.
Commit conventions:
```
feat: <what was added> # New functionality
fix: <what was fixed> # Bug fix within the task
test: <what was tested> # Test additions
docs: <what was documented> # Documentation only
```
Commit frequency:
- **Code:** After each logical step (one feature, one fix, one test suite)
- **Writing:** After each scene or section (~500-1000 words)
- **Never:** One big commit at the end with everything
### 4. Scope Control
Do exactly what the proposal says. No more, no less.
**In scope:**
- Files listed in the proposal's `### Changes` section
- Tests specified in the `### Test Strategy` section
- Dependencies explicitly mentioned
**Out of scope (even if tempting):**
- Refactoring code you noticed while implementing
- Adding features not in the proposal
- Fixing pre-existing bugs in adjacent code
- Updating documentation beyond what the task requires
If you encounter something that needs fixing but is out of scope: note it in `### Notes` for future work. Don't fix it now.
### 5. Blocker Protocol
If you hit a blocker (dependency missing, test infrastructure broken, proposal contradicts codebase):
1. Document what's blocked and why
2. Document what you completed before the block
3. Commit what you have
4. Stop and report — don't silently work around it
## Worktree Protocol
When running in an isolated git worktree (`isolation: "worktree"`):
```
main branch (untouched)
└── archeflow/maker-<run_id> (worktree branch)
├── commit: implementation step 1
├── commit: implementation step 2
└── commit: implementation step 3 (final)
```
- All work stays on the worktree branch
- Main branch is never modified directly
- The branch name follows the pattern: `archeflow/maker-<run_id>`
- After Check phase approves: the orchestrator merges (not the Maker)
## Output Format
```markdown
## Implementation: <task>
### Files Changed
- `path/file.ext` — What changed (+N -M lines)
### Tests
- N new tests, all passing
- M existing tests still passing
### Commits
1. `feat: description` (hash)
2. `test: description` (hash)
### Notes
- Assumptions made where proposal was unclear
- Out-of-scope issues noticed (for future work)
### Branch
`archeflow/maker-<run_id>` — ready for review
```
For writing domain:
```markdown
## Draft: <story/chapter title>
### Scenes Written
- Scene 1: <title> (~N words)
- Scene 2: <title> (~N words)
### Word Count
- Target: N | Actual: M | Delta: +/-
### Voice Notes
- Dialect usage: N instances (target: moderate)
- Essen/Trinken: present in X/Y scenes
### Commits
1. `feat: scene 1 - <title>` (hash)
2. `feat: scene 2 - <title>` (hash)
### Notes
- Deviations from outline (with reasoning)
```
## With Prior Feedback (Cycle 2+)
When the Maker receives feedback from a prior cycle's Check phase:
1. Read the `act-feedback.md` — focus on the `### For Maker` section
2. Address each finding marked as "routed to Maker"
3. In your output, include a response table:
```markdown
### Feedback Response
| Finding | Source | Action |
|---------|--------|--------|
| Test names unclear | Sage | Fixed — renamed to behavior descriptions |
| Missing edge case | Trickster | Added test for empty input |
```
Do not address findings routed to Creator — those were handled in the revised proposal.
## Quality Checklist (self-check before finishing)
Before your final commit, verify:
- [ ] All proposal changes implemented
- [ ] All new tests pass
- [ ] All existing tests still pass
- [ ] No files modified outside proposal scope
- [ ] Every logical step has its own commit
- [ ] Output summary is complete and accurate
- [ ] Branch name follows convention
## Test-First Gate
Before the Maker's output is accepted, the orchestrator validates that tests were included.
### Validation Logic
Read `do-maker-files.txt`. Check if any file path matches common test patterns:
- `*test*`, `*spec*`, `*.test.*`, `*.spec.*`, `*_test.*`, `*_spec.*`
- Files in directories named `test/`, `tests/`, `__tests__/`, `spec/`
For writing domain projects, this gate is skipped.
### Outcomes
| Result | Action |
|--------|--------|
| Test files found | Pass — proceed to Check phase |
| No test files, code domain | **Warn** — emit WARNING event, note in do-maker.md |
| No test files + Creator specified tests | **Block** — re-run Maker with test instruction (1 retry) |
| Writing domain | Skip gate entirely |
The block case triggers a targeted re-run with prompt:
"The proposal specified these test cases: <test strategy section>. No test files
were found in your changes. Add the specified tests before finishing."
This is one retry within the Do phase, not a full PDCA cycle.

200
skills/effectiveness/SKILL.md
View File

@@ -1,200 +0,0 @@
---
name: effectiveness
description: |
Track archetype effectiveness across runs. Scores each archetype on signal-to-noise,
fix rate, cost efficiency, accuracy, and cycle impact. Recommends model tier changes
and archetype removal based on rolling averages.
<example>User: "Which reviewers are actually useful?"</example>
<example>User: "Show archetype effectiveness report"</example>
---
# Agent Effectiveness Scoring
Track which archetypes are most useful vs. which waste tokens. Over multiple runs, build a profile of each archetype's effectiveness and use it to optimize team composition and model selection.
## Storage
```
.archeflow/memory/effectiveness.jsonl # Per-run archetype scores (append-only)
```
## Scoring Dimensions
For each archetype that participates in a run, calculate these scores:
| Dimension | How Measured | Weight |
|-----------|-------------|--------|
| **Signal-to-noise** | useful findings / total findings | 0.30 |
| **Fix rate** | findings that led to actual fixes / total findings | 0.25 |
| **Cost efficiency** | useful findings per dollar spent | 0.20 |
| **Accuracy** | findings not contradicted by other reviewers | 0.15 |
| **Cycle impact** | did this archetype's findings lead to cycle exit? | 0.10 |
### Definitions
- **Useful finding**: A finding in a `review.verdict` event with `severity >= WARNING` (i.e., severity is `warning`, `bug`, or `critical`) AND `fix_required == true`.
- **Actual fix**: A `fix.applied` event whose `source` field matches this archetype (or whose DAG `parent` chain traces back to this archetype's `review.verdict` event).
- **Contradicted finding**: Another reviewer's `review.verdict` has `verdict == "approved"` for the same scope where this archetype flagged an issue. Approximation: if archetype A flags N findings but archetype B approves the same code with 0 findings in overlapping severity categories, A's unmatched findings are considered potentially contradicted.
- **Cycle impact**: The archetype's findings (with `fix_required == true`) resulted in fixes that were part of the final approved cycle. Determined by checking if `fix.applied` events referencing this archetype exist before the final `cycle.boundary` with `met == true`.
### Composite Score
```
composite = (signal_to_noise * 0.30)
+ (fix_rate * 0.25)
+ (cost_efficiency_normalized * 0.20)
+ (accuracy * 0.15)
+ (cycle_impact * 0.10)
```
**Cost efficiency normalization**: Raw cost efficiency is `useful_findings / cost_usd`. To normalize to 0-1 range, use: `min(1.0, raw_efficiency / 100)`. The threshold of 100 means "100 useful findings per dollar" is considered perfect efficiency (achievable with haiku on structured reviews).
## Per-Run Scoring
After `run.complete`, calculate scores for each archetype that participated. The `extract` command does this.
### Per-Run Score Record
```jsonl
{"ts":"2026-04-03T16:00:00Z","run_id":"2026-04-03-der-huster","archetype":"guardian","signal_to_noise":0.85,"fix_rate":1.0,"cost_efficiency":42.5,"accuracy":1.0,"cycle_impact":true,"composite_score":0.91,"tokens":5000,"cost_usd":0.004,"model":"haiku","findings_total":4,"findings_useful":3,"fixes_applied":3}
```
Appended to `.archeflow/memory/effectiveness.jsonl`.
### Scoring Non-Review Archetypes
Only archetypes that produce `review.verdict` events are scored (Guardian, Skeptic, Sage, Trickster, and any custom review archetypes). Non-review archetypes (Explorer, Creator, Maker) are tracked by cost-tracking but not effectiveness-scored, because their output quality is measured differently (by whether the run succeeds, not by individual findings).
## Aggregate Scoring
Across all runs, maintain rolling averages (computed on-demand, not stored):
```jsonl
{"archetype":"guardian","runs":12,"avg_composite":0.88,"avg_signal_noise":0.82,"avg_cost_efficiency":38.2,"trend":"stable","recommendation":"keep"}
{"archetype":"trickster","runs":8,"avg_composite":0.35,"avg_signal_noise":0.20,"avg_cost_efficiency":5.1,"trend":"declining","recommendation":"consider_removing"}
```
### Trend Calculation
Compare the average composite score of the last 5 runs to the 5 runs before that:
- **improving**: last-5 avg > prior-5 avg + 0.05
- **declining**: last-5 avg < prior-5 avg - 0.05
- **stable**: within +/- 0.05
If fewer than 10 runs exist, trend is `"insufficient_data"`.
### Recommendations
Based on aggregate composite scores:
| Composite Score | Recommendation | Meaning |
|----------------|---------------|---------|
| >= 0.70 | `keep` | Archetype is valuable, contributes meaningful findings |
| 0.40 - 0.69 | `optimize` | Consider cheaper model or tighter review lens |
| < 0.40 | `consider_removing` | Might be wasting tokens, review whether it adds value |
## Integration Points
### At Run Start
When the `run` skill initializes, show a brief effectiveness summary for the team's archetypes:
```
Archetype effectiveness (last 10 runs):
guardian: 0.88 (keep) — haiku, $0.004/run avg
sage: 0.72 (keep) — sonnet, $0.08/run avg
skeptic: 0.45 (optimize) — haiku, $0.003/run avg
trickster: 0.32 (consider_removing) — haiku, $0.003/run avg
```
### Model Tier Suggestions
Cross-reference effectiveness with model assignment:
- **High effectiveness on cheap model** (composite >= 0.7, model = haiku): "Keep cheap. Working well."
- **Low effectiveness on cheap model** (composite < 0.5, model = haiku): "Consider upgrading to sonnet — cheap model may not be capturing issues."
- **High effectiveness on expensive model** (composite >= 0.7, model = sonnet): "Try downgrading to haiku — may maintain quality at lower cost."
- **Low effectiveness on expensive model** (composite < 0.5, model = sonnet): "Consider removing — expensive and not contributing."
### Cost-Tracking Integration
Multiply estimated cost by effectiveness to get "value per dollar":
```
value_per_dollar = composite_score / cost_usd
```
This metric helps compare archetypes directly: a cheap archetype with moderate effectiveness may have higher value_per_dollar than an expensive one with high effectiveness.
## Effectiveness Script
**Location:** `lib/archeflow-score.sh`
```
Usage:
archeflow-score.sh extract <events.jsonl> # Score archetypes from a completed run
archeflow-score.sh report # Show aggregate effectiveness report
archeflow-score.sh recommend <team.yaml> # Recommend model tiers for a team
```
### `extract` Command
1. Read all events from the JSONL file
2. Verify a `run.complete` event exists (scoring incomplete runs is unreliable)
3. For each `review.verdict` event:
- Count total findings and useful findings (severity >= WARNING, fix_required)
- Cross-reference with `fix.applied` events via the `source` field or DAG parent chain
- Check for contradictions from other reviewers
- Determine cycle impact
4. Calculate all scoring dimensions and composite score
5. Append per-archetype score records to `.archeflow/memory/effectiveness.jsonl`
### `report` Command
1. Read `.archeflow/memory/effectiveness.jsonl`
2. Group by archetype
3. Calculate rolling averages (last 10 runs per archetype)
4. Calculate trends (last 5 vs. prior 5)
5. Output a markdown table:
```markdown
# Archetype Effectiveness Report
| Archetype | Runs | Avg Score | S/N | Fix Rate | Cost Eff | Accuracy | Trend | Rec |
|-----------|------|-----------|-----|----------|----------|----------|-------|-----|
| guardian | 12 | 0.88 | 0.82 | 0.95 | 38.2 | 0.97 | stable | keep |
| sage | 10 | 0.72 | 0.70 | 0.80 | 12.1 | 0.88 | improving | keep |
| skeptic | 8 | 0.45 | 0.40 | 0.50 | 22.5 | 0.60 | stable | optimize |
| trickster | 8 | 0.35 | 0.20 | 0.30 | 5.1 | 0.55 | declining | consider_removing |
**Model suggestions:**
- skeptic (haiku, score 0.45): Consider upgrading to sonnet or tightening review lens
- trickster (haiku, score 0.35): Consider removing — low signal, low fix rate
```
### `recommend` Command
1. Read the team preset YAML file
2. For each archetype in the team, look up its effectiveness from `.archeflow/memory/effectiveness.jsonl`
3. Cross-reference current model assignment with effectiveness
4. Output recommendations:
```markdown
# Model Recommendations for team: story-development
| Archetype | Current Model | Score | Suggestion |
|-----------|--------------|-------|------------|
| guardian | haiku | 0.88 | Keep haiku — high effectiveness at low cost |
| sage | sonnet | 0.72 | Keep sonnet — quality-sensitive role |
| skeptic | haiku | 0.45 | Try sonnet — may improve signal quality |
| trickster | haiku | 0.35 | Consider removing from team |
```
## Design Principles
1. **Append-only.** Score records are immutable facts. Aggregates are computed on-demand.
2. **Review archetypes only.** Non-review agents (Explorer, Creator, Maker) are not scored — their value is in the final product, not in individual findings.
3. **Relative, not absolute.** Scores are meaningful in comparison (guardian vs. trickster), not as standalone numbers. The thresholds (0.7, 0.4) are starting points — calibrate after 20+ runs.
4. **Actionable.** Every report ends with concrete recommendations (keep, optimize, remove, change model).
5. **Cheap to compute.** One JSONL scan per report. No databases, no external services.

634
skills/orchestration/SKILL.md
View File

@@ -1,634 +0,0 @@
---
name: orchestration
description: Use when executing a multi-agent orchestration — spawning archetype agents, managing PDCA cycles, coordinating worktrees, and merging results. This is the step-by-step execution guide.
---
# Orchestration Execution
This skill guides you through running a full ArcheFlow orchestration using Claude Code's native Agent tool and git worktrees.
## Strategy Selection
A **strategy** defines the shape of an orchestration run — which phases execute, in what order, and when to iterate. A **workflow** (fast/standard/thorough) controls the depth within a strategy.
### Available Strategies
| Strategy | Flow | When to Use |
|----------|------|-------------|
| `pdca` | Plan -> Do -> Check -> Act (cyclic) | Refactors, thorough reviews, multi-concern tasks |
| `pipeline` | Plan -> Implement -> Spec-Review -> Quality-Review -> Verify (linear) | Bug fixes, fast patches, single-concern tasks |
| `auto` | Selected by task analysis | Default — let ArcheFlow decide |
### Strategy Interface
Every strategy defines:
- **Phases** — ordered list of execution stages
- **Agent mapping** — which archetypes run in each phase
- **Transition rules** — conditions for moving between phases
- **Iteration model** — cyclic (PDCA) or linear (pipeline)
- **Exit conditions** — when the run terminates
### PDCA Strategy
The existing orchestration flow (Steps 0-4 below). Cyclic — the Act phase can feed back to Plan for another iteration. Best for tasks requiring multiple review perspectives and iterative refinement.
### Pipeline Strategy
Linear flow with no cycle-back. Faster for well-understood tasks where one pass is sufficient.
| Phase | Agent | Purpose |
|-------|-------|---------|
| Plan | Creator | Design proposal |
| Implement | Maker | Build in worktree |
| Spec-Review | Guardian, then Skeptic | Security + assumption check (sequential) |
| Quality-Review | Sage | Code quality review |
| Verify | (automated) | Run tests, apply targeted fix if CRITICAL |
No cycle-back — WARNINGs are logged but do not block. CRITICALs in Verify trigger a single targeted fix attempt by the Maker, not a full cycle.
### Auto-Selection Rules
When `strategy: auto` (default):
- Task contains "fix", "bug", "patch", "hotfix" → `pipeline`
- Task contains "refactor", "redesign", "review" → `pdca`
- Workflow is `thorough` → `pdca` (always)
- Workflow is `fast` with single file → `pipeline`
- Otherwise → `pdca`
---
## Step 0: Choose a Workflow
If `.archeflow/teams/<name>.yaml` exists, the user can reference a team preset: `"Use the backend team"`. Load the preset's phase config instead of built-in defaults. See `archeflow:custom-archetypes` skill for preset format.
Otherwise, assess the task and pick:
| Signal | Workflow |
|--------|----------|
| Small fix, low risk, single concern | `fast` (1 cycle) |
| Feature, multiple files, moderate risk | `standard` (2 cycles) |
| Security-sensitive, breaking changes, public API | `thorough` (3 cycles) |
## Workflow Adaptation Rules
The initial workflow choice is a starting point, not a commitment. These rules adapt the workflow at runtime. Each rule specifies when it evaluates (which phase boundary).
### A3: Confidence Gate (evaluates: after Plan, before Do)
**When:** Creator's confidence table has any axis below 0.5.
**Action by axis:**
| Axis | Score < 0.5 Action |
|------|-------------------|
| Task understanding | **Pause.** Ask user to clarify before proceeding. Do not spawn Maker. |
| Solution completeness | **Upgrade to standard.** Add Explorer before Maker starts. |
| Risk coverage | **Spawn mini-Explorer** for the specific risky area (parallel, 5 min max). Maker can proceed. |
A3 runs before any Do/Check agents spawn, so there are no cancellation issues.
### A1: Conditional Escalation (evaluates: after Check, before next cycle)
**When:** Guardian rejects with 2+ CRITICAL findings in a `fast` workflow.
**Action:** Escalate to `standard` for the **next cycle** — add Skeptic + Sage to the reviewer roster.
**Why:** If Guardian found serious issues, more perspectives help find root causes.
**Sticky:** Once escalated, the workflow stays escalated for all remaining cycles. A2 does not apply to escalated workflows.
### A2: Guardian Fast-Path (evaluates: after Guardian, before spawning other reviewers)
**When:** Guardian finds 0 CRITICAL and 0 WARNING in a non-escalated `standard` or `thorough` workflow.
**Action:** Do not spawn Skeptic, Sage, or Trickster. Proceed directly to Act phase.
**Why:** Guardian's security review is the strictest gate. Clean pass = safe to skip additional reviewers.
**Critical:** Evaluate A2 **after Guardian completes but before other reviewers are spawned.** Do not spawn reviewers in parallel with Guardian — spawn Guardian first, check A2, then spawn remaining reviewers only if A2 doesn't trigger.
**Does not apply to:** Escalated workflows (A1 triggered), or first cycle of `thorough` workflows (Trickster is mandatory on first pass).
**Log:** Note "Guardian fast-path taken" in orchestration report.
### Evaluation Order
```
Plan phase completes → A3 (confidence gate)
↓
Guardian completes → A2 (fast-path check) → if clean, skip other reviewers
↓ if not, spawn other reviewers
Check phase done → A1 (escalation check) → if 2+ CRITICALs in fast, next cycle is standard
```
## Process Logging
If `.archeflow/events/` exists (or should be created), emit structured events throughout orchestration. See `archeflow:process-log` skill for full schema.
**Quick reference — emit at these points:**
```
run.start → After workflow selection, before first agent
agent.start → Before each Agent tool call
agent.complete → After each Agent returns (include duration, tokens, summary, artifacts)
decision → When choosing between alternatives (plot direction, approach, fix strategy)
phase.transition → At Plan→Do, Do→Check, Check→Act boundaries
review.verdict → After each reviewer delivers verdict
fix.applied → After each edit addressing a review finding
cycle.boundary → End of PDCA cycle
shadow.detected → When shadow threshold triggers
run.complete → After final Act phase (include totals)
```
**Helper:** `./lib/archeflow-event.sh <run_id> <type> <phase> <agent> '<json>'`
**Report:** `./lib/archeflow-report.sh .archeflow/events/<run_id>.jsonl`
Events are optional — if the events dir doesn't exist, skip logging. Never let logging block orchestration.
---
## Model Configuration
Model assignment per archetype and workflow is configured in `.archeflow/config.yaml` under the `models:` section. The `archeflow:run` skill (section 0c) handles resolution with fallback chain: per-workflow per-archetype > per-workflow default > per-archetype > global default. When spawning agents manually, read the config to select the appropriate model.
---
## Step 1: Plan Phase
Spawn agents sequentially — Creator needs Explorer's findings.
### Explorer (if standard or thorough)
**Context to include:** Task description, relevant file paths, codebase access.
**Context to exclude:** Prior proposals, review outputs, implementation details, feedback from previous cycles.
```
Agent(
description: "🔍 Explorer: research context",
prompt: "<task description>
You are the EXPLORER archetype.
Research the codebase to understand:
1. What files and functions are involved
2. What dependencies exist
3. What tests currently cover this area
4. What patterns the codebase uses
Write your findings as a structured research report.
Be thorough but focused — no rabbit holes.",
subagent_type: "Explore"
)
```
### Creator
**Context to include:** Task description, Explorer's research output. On cycle 2+: prior cycle's structured feedback (see Cycle Feedback Protocol).
**Context to exclude:** Raw file contents (Explorer already summarized), git diffs, reviewer full outputs.
**Fast workflow only (no Explorer):** The Creator must perform a Mini-Reflect before proposing:
1. Restate the task in your own words (catch misunderstandings early)
2. List 3 assumptions you're making
3. Name the one risk that would cause most damage if wrong
```
Agent(
description: "🏗️ Creator: design proposal",
prompt: "<task description>
You are the CREATOR archetype.
<if fast workflow (no Explorer): Before proposing, perform a Mini-Reflect:
1. Restate the task in one sentence
2. List 3 assumptions you're making
3. Name the highest-damage risk
Then propose.>
<if standard/thorough: Based on the research findings: <Explorer's output>>
<if cycle 2+: Prior cycle feedback: <structured feedback — see Cycle Feedback Protocol>>
Design a solution proposal including:
1. Architecture decisions (with rationale)
2. Files to create/modify (with specific changes)
3. Alternatives considered (at least 2, with rejection rationale)
4. Test strategy
5. Confidence (scored by axis: task understanding, solution completeness, risk coverage)
6. Risks you foresee
<if cycle 2+: 6. How you addressed each unresolved issue from prior feedback>
Be decisive. Ship a clear plan, not a menu of options.",
subagent_type: "Plan"
)
```
## Step 2: Do Phase
Spawn Maker in an **isolated worktree** so changes don't affect main.
**Context to include:** Creator's proposal only. On cycle 2+: implementation-routed feedback from Sage/Trickster.
**Context to exclude:** Explorer's research, Guardian/Skeptic findings (those go to Creator).
```
Agent(
description: "⚒️ Maker: implement proposal",
prompt: "<task description>
You are the MAKER archetype.
Implement this proposal: <Creator's output>
<if cycle 2+: Implementation feedback from prior cycle: <Sage/Trickster findings only>>
Rules:
1. Follow the proposal exactly — don't redesign
2. Write tests for every behavioral change
3. Commit with descriptive messages
4. Run existing tests — nothing may break
5. If the proposal is unclear, implement your best interpretation and note it
Do NOT skip tests. Do NOT refactor unrelated code.
BEFORE finishing — Self-Review Checklist:
1. Did I change ALL files listed in the proposal's Changes section?
2. Did I add tests for each behavioral change?
3. Are there files in my diff NOT listed in the proposal? If yes, revert them.
4. Do all existing tests still pass?
Report any gaps in your Implementation summary.",
isolation: "worktree",
mode: "bypassPermissions"
)
```
**Critical:** The Maker MUST commit its changes before finishing. Uncommitted changes in a worktree are lost.
## Step 3: Check Phase
Spawn Guardian **first**. After Guardian completes, check adaptation rule A2 (fast-path). If A2 triggers (0 CRITICAL, 0 WARNING, non-escalated workflow), skip remaining reviewers and proceed to Act. Otherwise, spawn remaining reviewers **in parallel**.
**Reviewer spawning protocol:** The canonical sequence (Guardian first, A2 evaluation, parallel spawning, timeout handling) is defined in `archeflow:check-phase` under "Reviewer Spawning Protocol". Follow that protocol for the exact spawning order, context per reviewer, and timeout rules.
### Guardian (always runs first)
**Context to include:** Maker's git diff, proposal risk section only.
**Context to exclude:** Explorer's research, full proposal, other reviewer outputs.
```
Agent(
description: "🛡️ Guardian: security and risk review",
prompt: "You are the GUARDIAN archetype.
Review the changes in branch: <maker's branch>
Assess:
1. Security vulnerabilities (injection, auth bypass, data exposure)
2. Reliability risks (error handling, edge cases, race conditions)
3. Breaking changes (API compatibility, schema migrations)
4. Dependency risks (new deps, version conflicts)
Output: APPROVED or REJECTED with specific findings.
Each finding: | file:line | CRITICAL/WARNING/INFO | category | description | fix |
Categories: security, reliability, design, breaking-change, dependency
Be rigorous but practical — flag real risks, not theoretical ones."
)
```
### Skeptic (if standard or thorough)
**Context to include:** Creator's proposal (focus on assumptions section).
**Context to exclude:** Git diff details, Explorer's research, other reviewer outputs.
```
Agent(
description: "🤔 Skeptic: challenge assumptions",
prompt: "You are the SKEPTIC archetype.
Review the proposal: <Creator's proposal>
Challenge:
1. Assumptions in the design — what if they're wrong?
2. Alternative approaches not considered
3. Edge cases not tested
4. Scalability concerns
Output: APPROVED or REJECTED with counterarguments.
Each finding: | file:line | CRITICAL/WARNING/INFO | category | description | fix |
Categories: design, quality, testing, scalability
Be constructive — every challenge must include a suggested alternative."
)
```
### Sage (if standard or thorough)
**Context to include:** Creator's proposal, Maker's git diff, implementation summary.
**Context to exclude:** Explorer's raw research, other reviewer outputs.
```
Agent(
description: "📚 Sage: holistic quality review",
prompt: "You are the SAGE archetype.
Review the changes in branch: <maker's branch>
Evaluate holistically:
1. Code quality (readability, maintainability, simplicity)
2. Test coverage (are the tests meaningful, not just present?)
3. Documentation (does the change need docs?)
4. Consistency with codebase patterns
Output: APPROVED or REJECTED with quality findings.
Each finding: | file:line | CRITICAL/WARNING/INFO | category | description | fix |
Categories: quality, testing, design, consistency
Judge like a senior engineer doing a PR review."
)
```
### Trickster (if thorough only)
**Context to include:** Maker's git diff only.
**Context to exclude:** Everything else — proposal, research, other reviews.
```
Agent(
description: "🃏 Trickster: adversarial testing",
prompt: "You are the TRICKSTER archetype.
Try to break the changes in branch: <maker's branch>
Attack vectors:
1. Malformed input, boundary values, empty/null/huge data
2. Concurrency and race conditions
3. Error path exploitation
4. Dependency failure scenarios
Output: APPROVED or REJECTED with edge cases found.
Each finding: | file:line | CRITICAL/WARNING/INFO | category | description | fix |
Categories: security, reliability, testing
Think like a QA engineer who gets paid per bug found."
)
```
## Step 4: Act Phase
Collect all reviewer outputs and decide.
### Completion Promise (optional)
If the user defined explicit done criteria with the task, check them now:
```
Completion criteria: <test command passes> AND <Guardian approves>
Example: "done when pytest passes and Guardian approves with 0 CRITICAL"
```
If completion criteria are defined, **all criteria must pass** — reviewer approval alone is not sufficient. If tests fail but reviewers approved, cycle back with "tests failing" as feedback to Creator.
### All Approved (and completion criteria met)
1. **Pre-merge hooks:** Check `.archeflow/hooks.yaml` for `pre-merge` hooks. Run them. If `fail_action: abort`, stop and report.
2. Merge the Maker's worktree branch into the target branch
3. **Post-merge hooks:** Run `post-merge` hooks from `.archeflow/hooks.yaml` if defined. Then run the project's test suite on the merged branch
- Tests pass → proceed to step 3
- Tests fail → **auto-revert** the merge commit, report the failure, and cycle back with "integration test failure on main" as feedback
3. Report: what was implemented, what was reviewed, any warnings noted
4. Clean up the worktree
5. Record metrics (see Orchestration Metrics)
### Issues Found (and cycles remaining)
1. Build structured feedback using the Cycle Feedback Protocol below
2. Go back to Step 1 (Plan) with the feedback
3. Creator revises the proposal, addressing each unresolved issue
4. Maker re-implements in a fresh worktree
5. Reviewers check again
### Max Cycles Reached with Unresolved Issues
1. Report all unresolved findings to the user
2. Present the best implementation so far (on its branch)
3. Let the user decide: merge as-is, fix manually, or abandon
---
## Cycle Feedback Protocol
After the Check phase, build structured feedback for the next cycle. This replaces dumping raw reviewer output.
### 1. Extract Findings
Parse each reviewer's output into the standardized format:
```markdown
## Cycle N Feedback
### Unresolved Issues
| Source | Severity | Category | Issue | Route to |
|--------|----------|----------|-------|----------|
| Guardian | CRITICAL | security | SQL injection in user input | Creator |
| Skeptic | WARNING | design | Assumes single-tenant only | Creator |
| Sage | WARNING | quality | Test names don't describe behavior | Maker |
| Trickster | CRITICAL | reliability | Empty string bypasses validation | Creator |
### Resolved (from cycle N-1)
| Source | Issue | Resolution |
|--------|-------|------------|
| Guardian | Missing rate limit | Added rate limiter middleware |
```
### 2. Route Feedback
Not all findings go to the same agent:
| Source | Category | Routes to | Reason |
|--------|----------|-----------|--------|
| Guardian | security, breaking-change | **Creator** | Design must change |
| Guardian | reliability, dependency | **Creator** | Architectural decision needed |
| Skeptic | design, scalability | **Creator** | Assumptions need revision |
| Sage | quality, consistency | **Maker** | Implementation refinement |
| Sage | testing | **Maker** | Test gap, not design flaw |
| Trickster | reliability (design flaw) | **Creator** | Needs redesign |
| Trickster | reliability (test gap) | **Maker** | Needs more tests |
| Trickster | testing | **Maker** | Edge case not covered |
**Disambiguation rule:** When in doubt: if the fix requires changing the approach, route to Creator. If it requires changing the code within the existing approach, route to Maker.
### 3. Track Resolution
Compare cycle N findings against cycle N-1:
- If a prior finding no longer appears in the same category → mark **resolved**
- If a prior finding persists → it stays **unresolved** with an incremented cycle count
- If new findings appear → add as new unresolved issues
This prevents regression and gives the Creator/Maker a clear list of what to address.
### 4. Convergence Detection
If the **same finding** (same category + same file location) appears **unresolved in 2 consecutive cycles**, escalate to user:
> "Finding persists across 2 cycles: [Guardian] CRITICAL security — SQL injection in src/auth.ts:48. This may need human judgment or a different approach."
Do not cycle again blindly. The issue is likely structural (wrong design, not wrong implementation) and needs human input.
### 5. Cross-Archetype Dedup
If two reviewers raise the same issue (same file + same category + similar description), merge into one finding in the consolidated output:
```
| Guardian + Skeptic | CRITICAL | security | Input not sanitized (src/api.ts:30) | Add validation |
```
Don't double-count in severity tallies. Route to the higher-priority destination (Creator over Maker).
---
## Orchestration Metrics
Track lightweight metrics throughout the orchestration. No token counting (unreliable from skill layer) — just timing and outcomes.
### Per-Phase Logging
After each phase completes, note:
```
| Phase | Duration | Agents | Outcome |
|-------|----------|--------|---------|
| Plan | 45s | 2 | Proposal ready (confidence: 0.8) |
| Do | 90s | 1 | 4 files changed, 8 tests added |
| Check | 60s | 3 | 1 REJECTED (Guardian), 2 APPROVED |
| Act | — | — | Cycle back → feedback built |
```
### Orchestration Summary
At orchestration end, include in the report:
```markdown
## Orchestration Metrics
| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Workflow | standard |
| Cycles | 2 of 2 |
| Total duration | 4m 30s |
| Agents spawned | 9 |
| Findings (total) | 5 |
| Findings (critical) | 1 |
| Findings (resolved) | 4 |
| Shadow detections | 0 |
```
Use this data to calibrate future workflow selection — if fast workflows consistently need 0 cycles of revision, the task was well-scoped.
---
## Autonomous Mode
When running unattended (overnight sessions, batch queues), add these behaviors to the orchestration loop:
### Between-Task Checkpoint
After each task completes (success or failure):
1. **Commit and push** all changes immediately
2. **Update session log** at `.archeflow/session-log.md` with task outcome
3. **Check stop conditions** before starting next task:
- 3 consecutive failures → STOP
- Shadow escalation (same shadow 3+ times) → STOP
- Test suite broken after merge → REVERT and STOP
- Destructive action detected → STOP
### Session Log Protocol
**Primary:** Emit `run.complete` event to `.archeflow/events/<run_id>.jsonl` (see Process Logging section above). The event stream is the source of truth.
**Secondary:** Also write a human-readable summary to `.archeflow/session-log.md`:
```markdown
## Task N: <description>
**Workflow:** standard | **Status:** COMPLETED/FAILED
**Cycles:** 1 of 2
**Findings:** Guardian APPROVED, Skeptic APPROVED, Sage WARNING (test names)
**Files changed:** 5 | **Tests added:** 12
**Branch:** merged to main (commit abc1234) | OR: archeflow/maker-xyz (NOT merged)
**Duration:** 8 min
**Events:** `.archeflow/events/<run_id>.jsonl` (full process log)
```
Generate the full Markdown report: `./lib/archeflow-report.sh .archeflow/events/<run_id>.jsonl`
### Safety Rules
- Never force-push. Never modify main history.
- All work stays on worktree branches until explicitly merged
- Merges use `--no-ff` — individually revertable
- Failed tasks leave branches intact for manual inspection
For full autonomous mode details (task queues, overnight checklists, user controls): load the `archeflow:autonomous-mode` skill.
---
## Shadow Monitoring
During orchestration, watch for shadow activation after each agent completes. Quick checklist:
| Archetype | Shadow | Quick Check |
|-----------|--------|-------------|
| Explorer | Rabbit Hole | Output >2000 words without Recommendation section? |
| Creator | Over-Architect | >2 new abstractions for one feature? |
| Maker | Rogue | No test files in changeset? Files outside proposal? |
| Guardian | Paranoid | CRITICAL:WARNING ratio >2:1? Zero approvals? |
| Skeptic | Paralytic | >7 challenges? <50% have alternatives? |
| Trickster | False Alarm | Findings in untouched code? >10 findings? |
| Sage | Bureaucrat | Review >2x code change length? |
On detection: apply correction prompt from `archeflow:shadow-detection` skill. On second detection of same shadow: replace agent. On 3+ shadows in same cycle: escalate to user.
---
## Parallel Team Orchestration
When running multiple independent tasks, spawn parallel ArcheFlow teams. Each team runs its own PDCA cycle on a separate worktree.
### Rules
1. **Non-overlapping file scope:** Each team must work on different files. If two tasks touch the same file, run them sequentially.
2. **Independent worktrees:** Each team's Maker gets its own worktree branch (`archeflow/team-1-maker`, `archeflow/team-2-maker`).
3. **First-finished-first-merged:** Teams merge in completion order. Later teams rebase onto the updated main before their own merge.
4. **Merge conflict handling:** If rebase fails, the later team re-runs its Check phase against the merged main. If conflicts are structural, escalate to user.
5. **Max 3 parallel teams:** More causes diminishing returns and merge headaches.
### Spawning Parallel Teams
```
# Launch 2-3 teams in a single message with multiple Agent calls:
Agent(description: "🏗️ Team 1: pagination fix (fast)", ...)
Agent(description: "🏗️ Team 2: JWT auth (standard)", ...)
Agent(description: "🏗️ Team 3: logging refactor (fast)", ...)
```
Each team follows the full PDCA steps independently. The orchestrator monitors all teams and handles merges.
---
## Reviewer Profiles
Projects can configure which reviewers matter in `.archeflow/config.yaml`:
```yaml
reviewers:
always: [guardian] # Always runs
default: [sage] # Runs in standard+thorough
thorough_only: [trickster] # Only in thorough
skip: [skeptic] # Never runs for this project
```
If no config exists, use the built-in workflow defaults. Profiles save tokens by not spawning reviewers that add little value for the specific project.
## Explorer Cache
If the same code area was explored recently, skip Explorer and reuse prior research:
**Cache hit criteria:** Same files affected (>70% overlap by path) AND prior research is <24 hours old AND no commits to those files since the research.
**On cache hit:** Show the prior research to Creator with a note: "Using cached Explorer research from [timestamp]. If the codebase changed significantly, re-run Explorer."
**On cache miss:** Run Explorer normally.
Cache is stored in `.archeflow/explorer-cache/` as timestamped markdown files. The orchestrator checks for matches before spawning Explorer.
## Learning from History
Track which archetypes catch real issues per project over time. After each orchestration, append to `.archeflow/metrics.jsonl`:
```json
{"task": "...", "archetype": "guardian", "findings": 2, "critical": 1, "resolved": 2, "useful": true}
{"task": "...", "archetype": "skeptic", "findings": 3, "critical": 0, "resolved": 0, "useful": false}
```
A finding is **useful** if it was resolved (led to a code change) rather than dismissed.
After 10+ orchestrations, the orchestrator can recommend reviewer profile changes:
- "Skeptic has found 0 useful issues in 8 runs — consider moving to `skip` or `thorough_only`"
- "Guardian catches critical issues in 80% of runs — confirmed as essential"
This is advisory, not automatic. The user decides based on the data.
---
## Orchestration Report
After completion, summarize:
```markdown
## ArcheFlow Orchestration Report
- **Task:** <description>
- **Workflow:** standard (2 cycles)
- **Cycle 1:** Guardian rejected (SQL injection in user input handler)
- **Cycle 2:** All approved after input sanitization added
- **Files changed:** 4 files, +120 -30 lines
- **Tests added:** 8 new tests
- **Branch:** archeflow/maker-<id> → merged to main
- **Metrics:** 9 agents, 4m 30s, 5 findings (4 resolved, 1 info remaining)
```

175
skills/plan-phase/SKILL.md
View File

@@ -1,175 +0,0 @@
---
name: plan-phase
description: Use when acting as Explorer or Creator in the Plan phase. Defines output formats for research and proposals.
---
# Plan Phase
Explorer researches, then Creator designs. Sequential — Creator needs Explorer's findings.
## Explorer Output Format
```markdown
## Research: <task>
### Affected Code
- `path/file.ext` — description (L<start>-<end>)
### Dependencies
- What depends on what, what breaks if changed
### Patterns
- How the codebase solves similar problems
### Risks
- What could go wrong
### Recommendation
<one paragraph: approach + rationale>
```
## Creator Output Format
```markdown
## Proposal: <task>
### Mini-Reflect (fast workflow only — skip if Explorer ran)
- **Task restated:** <one sentence>
- **Assumptions:** 1) ... 2) ... 3) ...
- **Highest-damage risk:** <the one thing that would hurt most if wrong>
### Architecture Decision
<What and WHY>
### Alternatives Considered
| Approach | Why Rejected |
|----------|-------------|
| <option A> | <reason> |
| <option B> | <reason> |
### Changes
1. **`path/file.ext`** — What changes and why
2. **`path/test.ext`** — What tests to add
### Test Strategy
- <specific test cases>
### Confidence
| Axis | Score | Note |
|------|-------|------|
| Task understanding | <0.0-1.0> | <why> |
| Solution completeness | <0.0-1.0> | <gaps?> |
| Risk coverage | <0.0-1.0> | <unknowns?> |
### Risks
- <what could go wrong + mitigations>
### Not Doing
- <adjacent concerns deliberately excluded>
```
**Confidence triggers:** If any axis scores below 0.5, flag it to the orchestrator. Low task understanding → clarify with user. Low solution completeness → consider standard workflow. Low risk coverage → spawn targeted Explorer research.
## Creator with Prior Feedback (Cycle 2+)
When the Creator receives structured feedback from a prior cycle, the proposal must include an additional section addressing each unresolved issue:
```markdown
## Proposal: <task> (Revision — Cycle N)
### What Changed (vs. prior proposal)
- <brief delta: what was added, removed, or redesigned>
### Prior Feedback Response
| Issue | Source | Action | Rationale |
|-------|--------|--------|-----------|
| SQL injection in user input | Guardian | **Fixed** — added parameterized queries | Direct security fix |
| Assumes single-tenant | Skeptic | **Deferred** — multi-tenant out of scope | Not in task requirements |
| Test names unclear | Sage | **Accepted** — routed to Maker | Implementation concern |
### Architecture Decision
<revised design addressing feedback>
### Changes
<updated file list>
### Test Strategy
<updated test cases>
### Confidence
| Axis | Score | Note |
|------|-------|------|
| Task understanding | <0.0-1.0> | <why> |
| Solution completeness | <0.0-1.0> | <gaps?> |
| Risk coverage | <0.0-1.0> | <unknowns?> |
### Risks
<updated risks — include any new risks from the revision>
### Not Doing
<updated scope boundaries>
```
**Rules for addressing feedback:**
- **Fixed:** Changed the design to resolve the issue. Explain how.
- **Deferred:** Not addressing now, with explicit reason. Must not be a CRITICAL finding.
- **Accepted:** Acknowledged and routed to Maker for implementation-level fix.
- **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.
## Task Granularity
Each change item in the Creator's proposal must be a **2-5 minute task** — specific enough that the Maker can implement it without interpretation.
### Requirements per Change Item
Every item in the `### Changes` section must include:
1. **Exact file path** — `src/auth/handler.ts`, not "the auth module"
2. **What to change** — a code block showing the target state or transformation
3. **How to verify** — a command or check that confirms correctness
### Good Example
```markdown
1. **`src/auth/handler.ts:48`** — Add input length validation before token processing
```typescript
if (!token || token.trim().length === 0) {
throw new ValidationError('Token must not be empty');
}
```
**Verify:** `npm test -- --grep "empty token"` passes
```
### Bad Example
```markdown
1. **Auth module** — Fix the validation logic
```
This is too vague. Which file? Which function? What does "fix" mean? The Maker will guess.
### Granularity Check
- If a single change item would take **>5 minutes**, split it into smaller items
- If a non-trivial task has **<2 change items**, it is under-specified — the Creator missed something
- Each item should touch **1-2 files** at most. Cross-cutting changes need separate items per file.
---
## 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.

278
skills/process-log/SKILL.md
View File

@@ -1,278 +0,0 @@
---
name: process-log
description: |
Event-based process logging for ArcheFlow orchestrations. Captures every phase transition,
agent output, decision, and fix as structured JSONL events. Enables post-hoc reports,
dashboards, and process archaeology.
<example>Automatically loaded during orchestration</example>
<example>User: "Show me how this story was made"</example>
---
# Process Log — Event-Sourced Orchestration History
Every ArcheFlow orchestration writes structured events to a JSONL file. Events are the **single source of truth** — all reports (Markdown, dashboards, timelines) are generated views.
## Event Storage
```
.archeflow/events/<run-id>.jsonl # One file per orchestration run
.archeflow/events/index.jsonl # Run index (one line per run, for listing)
```
**Run ID format:** `<date>-<slug>` (e.g., `2026-04-03-der-huster`)
## When to Emit Events
Emit an event at each of these points during orchestration:
| Moment | Event Type | Trigger |
|--------|-----------|---------|
| Orchestration starts | `run.start` | After workflow selection, before first agent |
| Agent spawned | `agent.start` | Before each Agent tool call |
| Agent completes | `agent.complete` | After each Agent returns |
| Phase transition | `phase.transition` | Plan→Do, Do→Check, Check→Act |
| Decision made | `decision` | Plot direction chosen, fix applied, workflow adapted |
| Review verdict | `review.verdict` | Guardian/Sage/Skeptic delivers verdict |
| Fix applied | `fix.applied` | After each edit that addresses a review finding |
| Cycle boundary | `cycle.boundary` | End of PDCA cycle, before next (or exit) |
| Shadow detected | `shadow.detected` | Shadow threshold triggered |
| Orchestration ends | `run.complete` | After final Act phase |
## Event Schema
Every event is one JSON line with these required fields:
```jsonl
{
"ts": "2026-04-03T14:32:07Z",
"run_id": "2026-04-03-der-huster",
"seq": 4,
"parent": [2],
"type": "agent.complete",
"phase": "plan",
"agent": "creator",
"data": { ... }
}
```
| Field | Type | Description |
|-------|------|-------------|
| `ts` | ISO 8601 | Timestamp |
| `run_id` | string | Unique run identifier |
| `seq` | integer | Monotonically increasing sequence number within run |
| `parent` | int[] | Seq numbers of causal parent events. Forms a DAG. `[]` for root events. |
| `type` | string | Event type (see table above) |
| `phase` | string | Current PDCA phase: `plan`, `do`, `check`, `act` |
| `agent` | string or null | Agent archetype that triggered the event |
| `data` | object | Event-type-specific payload (see below) |
### Parent Relationships (DAG)
The `parent` field turns the flat event stream into a directed acyclic graph (agent call graph). This enables:
- **Causal reconstruction:** which agent output caused which downstream action
- **Parallel visualization:** agents sharing a parent ran concurrently
- **Blame tracking:** trace a fix back through review → draft → outline → research
Rules:
- `run.start` has `parent: []` (root node)
- An agent has `parent: [seq of event that triggered it]`
- A phase transition has `parent: [seq of all completing events in prior phase]`
- A fix has `parent: [seq of the review that found the issue]`
- A decision has `parent: [seq of the agent that produced the alternatives]`
- Parallel agents share the same parent (fan-out), phase transitions collect them (fan-in)
Example DAG from a writing workflow:
```
#1 run.start []
├── #2 agent.complete (explorer) [1]
│ └── #3 decision (plot direction) [2]
├── #4 agent.complete (creator) [2] ← explorer informs creator
├── #5 phase.transition (plan→do) [3,4] ← fan-in
│ └── #6 agent.complete (maker) [5]
├── #7 phase.transition (do→check) [6]
│ ├── #8 review (guardian) [7] ← parallel (fan-out)
│ └── #9 review (sage) [7] ← parallel (fan-out)
├── #10 phase.transition (check→act) [8,9] ← fan-in
├── #11 fix (timeline) [8] ← caused by guardian
├── #12 fix (voice drift) [9] ← caused by sage
└── #18 run.complete [17]
```
## Event Payloads by Type
### `run.start`
```json
{
"task": "Write short story 'Der Huster'",
"workflow": "kurzgeschichte",
"team": "story-development",
"max_cycles": 2,
"config": {
"voice_profile": "vp-giesing-gschichten-v1",
"persona": "giesinger",
"target_words": 6000
}
}
```
### `agent.start`
```json
{
"archetype": "story-explorer",
"model": "haiku",
"prompt_summary": "Research premise, find emotional core, suggest 3 plot directions"
}
```
### `agent.complete`
```json
{
"archetype": "story-explorer",
"duration_ms": 87605,
"tokens": 21645,
"artifacts": ["docs/01-der-huster-research.md"],
"summary": "3 plot directions developed, recommended C (Mo krank + Koffer)"
}
```
### `decision`
```json
{
"what": "plot_direction",
"chosen": "C — Mo krank + Koffer aus B",
"alternatives": [
{"id": "A", "label": "Mo ist weg", "reason_rejected": "Zu passiv für 6k-Story"},
{"id": "B", "label": "Huster gehört nicht Mo", "reason_rejected": "Zu Krimi-nah"}
],
"rationale": "Stärkster emotionaler Kern, passt zum Voice Profile"
}
```
### `review.verdict`
```json
{
"archetype": "guardian",
"verdict": "approved_with_fixes",
"findings": [
{"severity": "bug", "description": "Timeline: 'Montag' referenced but story starts Dienstag", "fix_required": true},
{"severity": "recommendation", "description": "Gentrification monologue too long for Alex register", "fix_required": false}
]
}
```
### `fix.applied`
```json
{
"source": "guardian",
"finding": "Timeline: Montag → Dienstag",
"file": "stories/01-der-huster.md",
"line": 302,
"before": "das Gegenteil von Montag",
"after": "das Gegenteil von Dienstag"
}
```
### `phase.transition`
```json
{
"from": "plan",
"to": "do",
"artifacts_so_far": ["research.md", "outline.md"],
"notes": "Explorer recommended direction C, Creator produced 6-scene outline"
}
```
### `cycle.boundary`
```json
{
"cycle": 1,
"max_cycles": 2,
"exit_condition": "all_approved",
"met": true,
"fixes_applied": 6,
"next_action": "complete"
}
```
### `shadow.detected`
```json
{
"archetype": "story-explorer",
"shadow": "endless_research",
"trigger": "output >2000 words without recommendation",
"action": "correction_prompt_applied",
"occurrence": 1
}
```
### `run.complete`
```json
{
"status": "completed",
"cycles": 1,
"agents_total": 5,
"fixes_total": 6,
"shadows": 0,
"duration_ms": 1295519,
"artifacts": [
"docs/01-der-huster-research.md",
"docs/01-der-huster-outline.md",
"stories/01-der-huster.md",
"docs/01-der-huster-guardian-review.md",
"docs/01-der-huster-sage-review.md",
"docs/01-der-huster-process.md"
]
}
```
## How to Emit Events
During orchestration, write events using this pattern:
```bash
# Append one event to the run's JSONL file
echo '{"ts":"'$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)'","run_id":"RUN_ID","seq":SEQ,"type":"TYPE","phase":"PHASE","agent":"AGENT","data":{...}}' >> .archeflow/events/RUN_ID.jsonl
```
Or use the helper script:
```bash
./lib/archeflow-event.sh RUN_ID TYPE PHASE AGENT '{"key":"value"}'
```
The orchestration skill should call the event emitter at each trigger point listed in the table above.
## Generating Reports
After orchestration completes (or during, for live progress):
```bash
# Generate markdown process report
./lib/archeflow-report.sh .archeflow/events/2026-04-03-der-huster.jsonl > docs/process-report.md
# List all runs
cat .archeflow/events/index.jsonl | jq -r '[.run_id, .status, .task] | @tsv'
```
## Run Index
After each `run.complete`, append a summary line to `.archeflow/events/index.jsonl`:
```jsonl
{"run_id":"2026-04-03-der-huster","ts":"2026-04-03T16:00:00Z","task":"Write Der Huster","workflow":"kurzgeschichte","status":"completed","cycles":1,"agents":5,"fixes":6,"duration_ms":1295519}
```
## Integration with Existing Skills
- **`orchestration`**: Emit events at phase transitions and after each agent
- **`shadow-detection`**: Emit `shadow.detected` when thresholds trigger
- **`autonomous-mode`**: Use `index.jsonl` for session summaries instead of separate session-log
- **`workflow-design`**: Custom workflows inherit logging automatically
## Design Principles
1. **Append-only.** Never modify or delete events. They are immutable facts.
2. **Self-contained.** Each event has enough context to be understood alone (no forward references).
3. **Cheap.** One `echo >>` per event. No database, no service, no dependencies.
4. **Optional.** If events dir doesn't exist, orchestration works fine without logging. Events are observation, not control flow.

1039
skills/run/SKILL.md
View File

File diff suppressed because it is too large Load Diff