Christian Nennemann
83e09b70f2
Sprint 1 — Workflow Intelligence (A1-A3):
- Conditional escalation: fast→standard on 2+ CRITICALs
- Guardian fast-path: skip remaining reviewers on clean pass
- Confidence-triggered escalation: pause/upgrade/probe on low scores
Sprint 2 — Quality Loop (B1-B2, B5-B6):
- Maker self-review checklist before submitting to Check phase
- Proposal diff ("What Changed") on cycle 2+ revisions
- Convergence detection: escalate to user if same finding persists 2 cycles
- Cross-archetype dedup: merge duplicate findings from different reviewers
Sprint 3 — Completion & Verification (B3-B4):
- Completion promise: user-defined done criteria checked in Act phase
- Post-merge verification: run tests on main, auto-revert on failure
Sprint 4 — Parallel & Scale (C1-C4):
- Parallel team orchestration: 2-3 independent teams with merge gate
- Task dependency graph in autonomous queue format
- Auto-resume on interruption via .archeflow/state.json
- Budget-aware scheduling with automatic workflow downgrade
3.4 KiB
3.4 KiB
name, description
| name | description |
|---|---|
| plan-phase | 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
## 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
## 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:
## 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.