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/
92 lines
2.3 KiB
Markdown
92 lines
2.3 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
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>
|
|
**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:
|
|
|
|
```markdown
|
|
## 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.
|