Christian Nennemann
d08dc657d1
- Cross-cycle feedback protocol with structured finding format, routing, and resolution tracking - Attention filter enforcement: explicit context include/exclude per archetype - Shadow detection: quantitative checklists with concrete thresholds - Orchestration metrics: per-phase timing, agent count, findings summary - Autonomous mode wiring: checkpoint protocol, session log, stop conditions - Auto-activation: SessionStart hook fires ArcheFlow for implementation tasks without user config - Emoji avatars for all 7 archetypes - Standardized finding format across all reviewers for cross-cycle tracking - Persisted implementation plan in docs/
2.3 KiB
2.3 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>
**Confidence:** <0.0 to 1.0>
### Architecture Decision
<What and WHY>
### Changes
1. **`path/file.ext`** — What changes and why
2. **`path/test.ext`** — What tests to add
### Test Strategy
- <specific test cases>
### Risks
- <what could go wrong + mitigations>
### Not Doing
- <adjacent concerns deliberately excluded>
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)
**Confidence:** <0.0 to 1.0>
### 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>
### 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.