Commit Graph

4 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
kami 3d5e05c1fb feat(context): reasoning-thread continuity, L3 doc filtering, and gate hardening
Threads reasoning_content across inference calls and journal renders, filters
markdown noise out of L3 repo-knowledge retrieval, adds PlanLinter H3 checks,
and tightens filesystem tool output/dir-listing behavior surfaced by prior
live QA (see project_readloop_campaign memory).
2026-07-10 11:13:43 +04:00
kami afb536f21f feat(tasks): wire the task tools into role_pipeline
Tool availability is a strict per-stage allowlist, so the task doctrine was
inert in role_pipeline — no stage granted the tools. Add them where they fit
each stage's tier and role, and point the stage prompts at the lifecycle:

- analyst (read-only): task_search/task_context to find related or duplicate
  work and ground the analysis.
- implementer: full set — claim before working, submit_for_review once
  verification passes, create one if the work warrants tracking.
- reviewer: task_context to judge against the task's own criteria, task_update
  to complete it on an approved verdict.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-06-24 10:04:01 +00:00
kami 3467826d4a feat(workflows): reviewer narrow-question + static-first framing (role-reliability §5)
The reviewer prompt told the model to judge "the analysis requirements," but
the reviewer stage only needed [patch, impl_plan] — it never actually received
the analysis artifact, so the acceptance criteria it was meant to check against
were never in its context. A reliability gate checking against criteria it
can't see is theater.

- reviewer now needs `analysis`, so the diff is judged against concrete,
  pre-stated acceptance criteria (§5 narrow question) rather than whole files
  against taste; the §3 minItems enforcement guarantees those criteria are
  non-empty.
- reviewer.md operationalizes §5's two principles: evaluate the diff against
  each requirement (findings must map to a requirement/plan-step/defect), and
  don't re-report what deterministic tools already catch (compiler/detekt/tests
  — trust verification, point at failures, don't re-derive them).

This is the workflow-level realization of §5. The full static-first
infrastructure (running static tools as a pipeline step and mechanically
excluding their findings from reviewer context) needs a static-findings event
representation and is deferred. §6 critic calibration needs runtime history
before it can say anything (spec ordering #5).
2026-06-13 16:24:09 +04:00
kami 6393d578fd feat(workflow): role-pipeline prompts + artifact-kinds config 2026-06-04 02:04:14 +04:00