docs(plans): foundation direction proposal after Jason's KPI message
Answers the five questions, maps the brain dump against the repo, and proposes one end-to-end slice before measures. Not ratified. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <[email protected]>
This commit is contained in:
Claude Opus 5.5
@@ -460,3 +460,6 @@ are never rewritten or removed; corrections are new entries.
|
||||
2026-10-04T06:01:02Z | Filbert (T3 Claude Code, thread 9cb9731e) | row 33 handoff (#1508) | REVIEW-REQUEST to Darkwing (round 1, comment 26648, manifest fe7da3ef, build notes agents/filbert/work/queue-33/build.md); INFO to Sage (queue commit 930d2757 not pushed, source uncommitted, rev 44 race note); waiting on Darkwing's verdict
|
||||
2026-10-04T06:10:28Z | Filbert (T3 Claude Code, thread 9cb9731e) | row 33 approved (#1508) | Darkwing r1 approve, comment 26651, rev 48 (862f865a, not pushed); verify --current ok at rev 48; manifest fe7da3ef still matches the working tree; candidate left unchanged for Sage's commit; n1 (owner-second genesis case) and n2 (idle cold runs) noted, not acted on
|
||||
2026-10-04T06:26:07Z | Sage (T3 Claude Code, thread 1ef1e4f8) | row 33 commit and close (#1508) | candidate 6fb50cc0 after Darkwing's r1 approval (26651); suites green except one first-run queue node failure (147/1), 10 reruns 148/148, cold-start item reopened in DEFERRED; row 33 done rev 49
|
||||
2026-10-04T06:26:40Z | Filbert (T3 Claude Code, thread 9cb9731e) | row 33 landed (#1508) | Sage committed 6fb50cc0, row done rev 49, pushed through 1c724958; n1 checked on the committed code: parseMigrationMap refuses the owner first, second or third among reviewers, so a coverage gap and not a bug, left as Sage directed; cold-start item reopened by Sage (147/1 on an export, test name lost), my closing entry stands
|
||||
2026-10-04T08:11:41Z | Dewey (T3 Claude Code) | CHAT-03 I1 build, row 5 (#1507) | candidate frozen: manifest agents/dewey/work/chat-03/I1-manifest.sha256 (1404341e, 27 files), packet BUILD-I1.md; all acceptance suites green, 41/41 mutants killed after 7 kill tests; row 5 in-review round 1, request comment 26671 (rev 52); reviewers darkwing, filbert; nothing committed or pushed
|
||||
2026-10-04T18:45:43Z | Sage (T3 Claude Code, thread 1ef1e4f8) | foundation direction (Jason's KPI message) | proposal docs/plans/2026-10-04_foundation-direction.md: five questions answered, brain dump mapped against what exists, Vikunja integrate-not-annex, slice 1 order; row 32 park recommended; needs Jason's ratification before any goal moves; row 5 I1 reviews pinged to darkwing and filbert
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,240 @@
|
||||
# Foundation direction: build the system, then measure it (proposal, 2026-10-04)
|
||||
|
||||
Status: a proposal from Sage. Not ratified. It would change the
|
||||
2026-09-27 goals page (`docs/plans/2026-09-27_goals-review.md`), which
|
||||
Jason ratified, so it needs his ruling before any goal moves.
|
||||
|
||||
## Why this page exists
|
||||
|
||||
On 2026-10-04 Jason rejected the KPI line of work, verbatim:
|
||||
|
||||
> Let's put some intelligence behind the question of the KPIs. Reduction
|
||||
> of necessary human interaction is good. But:
|
||||
> - Reduced in what way?
|
||||
> - What automations do the agents handle without interaction?
|
||||
> - How do the agents know where to steer?
|
||||
> - How do we establish the north star with clear direction?
|
||||
> - Who makes the decisions about conflicts?
|
||||
>
|
||||
> We are chasing the reduction of human interactions without building the
|
||||
> system properly to keep the direction true.
|
||||
|
||||
The brain dump in the same message, verbatim:
|
||||
|
||||
> Mosaic Stack must provide separation of duties for agents. Project
|
||||
> Manager, CEO, CFO, CTO, CMO, CIO, COO, etc. must all be declarable and
|
||||
> have strict adherence to protocol.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> The stack must:
|
||||
> - provide the ability to mint credentials
|
||||
> - provide credentials
|
||||
> - declare variables per system, business, workspace/project, agent
|
||||
> - enable inter-agent communications
|
||||
> - enable agent-level, proactive decision making
|
||||
> - enable surfacing of outstanding decisions
|
||||
> - track open tasks in a project management platform (Vikunja) with
|
||||
> agentic capability to fully manage the tasks, dates, assignments, and
|
||||
> all aspects of the system. Perhaps just annex the Vikunja code INTO
|
||||
> Mosaic Stack??
|
||||
> - reduce the human interaction by intelligently handling things that
|
||||
> don't need the human to make a decision
|
||||
> - use PRDY to establish the PRD and north star
|
||||
> - adapt to the needs of the user to provide options when appropriate,
|
||||
> and avoid the presentation of interruptions where not needed
|
||||
> - provide a meta-harness for Claude, Codex, Pi, and other providers with
|
||||
> the skills, system prompt, hooks, etc. to establish the system
|
||||
>
|
||||
> If we are able to focus on the establishment of the system, establish
|
||||
> the controls, tools, skills, system prompts, etc., we will necessarily
|
||||
> address the KPIs over time. Then we can isolate an area of deficiency
|
||||
> and optimize.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> I don't have a functional system yet for Mosaic Stack. We have been able
|
||||
> to surface some level of interaction within the system, but not yet
|
||||
> providing a full webUI for interaction. Actually, I don't have a cli for
|
||||
> interaction either. Therefore, we should be focused on establishing the
|
||||
> basal systems, interface, messaging, cli/tui, webui, task management,
|
||||
> profiles, and build upon those foundations. Without a system to measure,
|
||||
> we can't iterate and improve.
|
||||
|
||||
Sage agrees. The ledger brief (`2026-10-04_ledger-kpi-guideposts.md`,
|
||||
row 32) tries to sort Jason's chat messages by hand into "decision" and
|
||||
"overhead". It has to work that way because the system has no decision
|
||||
object to count. That's a missing piece of the system, not a missing
|
||||
metric.
|
||||
|
||||
## The five questions
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Reduced in what way?
|
||||
|
||||
Jason's messages fall into three kinds.
|
||||
|
||||
- **Decisions only he can make:** direction, money, authority, outward
|
||||
communication, taste. These stay. They should cost less: batched, each
|
||||
with a recommendation, answerable in one word, and never asked twice.
|
||||
- **Admin the system should do:** launching seats, relaying between them,
|
||||
finding a credential, asking for status, correcting drift, and asking
|
||||
"did you actually start?". These go to zero by building the missing
|
||||
parts, not by asking agents to try harder.
|
||||
- **Interruptions that aren't decisions:** questions an agent could have
|
||||
settled under policy. These go to zero by declaring, per role, what it
|
||||
may decide.
|
||||
|
||||
Fewer messages follows from those three. It isn't the target.
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Which automations run without Jason?
|
||||
|
||||
That depends on the decision's class and on the role that holds it. It's
|
||||
declared in policy, not left to each agent's judgment.
|
||||
|
||||
| Class | Examples | Who decides |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| Routine | naming, approach, tests, docs, retries | the agent doing the work |
|
||||
| Within a role, reversible | assigning and scheduling tasks, reviews, pushing reviewed work to the working branch | the role holder; logged |
|
||||
| Across roles | two roles want opposite things, or one role's work blocks another's | the arbiter role named for that business |
|
||||
| Gated | spend, minting credentials, outward communication, merge to main, deploy, policy or role changes, the PRD | the human |
|
||||
|
||||
This table is prose in AGENTS.md today. It has to become data in each
|
||||
role's file under `roles/`, so a harness hook can enforce it and the
|
||||
decision inbox can sort by it.
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. How do agents know where to steer?
|
||||
|
||||
A chain every piece of work must sit in: PRD (objective, non-goals,
|
||||
success measures) → goals → milestones → tasks. A task names the PRD
|
||||
requirement or goal it serves, and a task with no parent can't be created.
|
||||
That check fails closed. An agent choosing work reads up the chain.
|
||||
|
||||
Today the chain is loose. The goals page leads to queue rows, and rows
|
||||
lead to briefs. No row cites a requirement id, because no PRD exists.
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. How is the north star set?
|
||||
|
||||
With PRDY. In v1 it's a package (`v1/packages/prdy`, about 1,500 lines of
|
||||
TypeScript, 20 tests) plus a skill (`v1/skills/mosaic-prdy`). It holds:
|
||||
- a guided interview that asks a few questions with lettered options;
|
||||
- section templates (problem, scope and non-goals, requirements,
|
||||
acceptance criteria, risks, milestones, success measures);
|
||||
- a lifecycle of draft → review → approved → archived;
|
||||
- successor versions on conflict, so an approved PRD is never edited in
|
||||
place.
|
||||
|
||||
The north star of a business or project is its approved PRD's objective,
|
||||
non-goals and success measures. Only the human approves a PRD.
|
||||
|
||||
Mosaic Stack needs no code to start this. Sage can run the PRDY interview
|
||||
with Jason by hand, using v1's template, and write the first PRD for
|
||||
Mosaic Stack itself. The port to code comes later, once the shape is
|
||||
proven.
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. Who decides conflicts?
|
||||
|
||||
Each business declares an order. A conflict inside one role's domain goes
|
||||
to that role's holder. A conflict between domains goes to the named
|
||||
arbiter (CEO for business questions, PM for delivery order, CTO for
|
||||
technical ones). Anything in the gated class, or anything that would
|
||||
change the PRD, goes to the human. Escalation happens as a decision object
|
||||
in the inbox, never as a chat message.
|
||||
|
||||
For Mosaic Stack today: Sage by Jason's ruling of 2026-09-26, then Jason.
|
||||
When two of Jason's own rulings conflict, Sage puts both to him side by
|
||||
side and doesn't pick one.
|
||||
|
||||
## What exists against the brain dump
|
||||
|
||||
| Need | Today | Gap |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| Declarable roles with protocol | `roles/` has `conductor-policy.json` and `researcher.json`; `agents/README.md` lists seats | No schema for business roles (PM, CEO, CTO and the rest), no decision classes, no role lock |
|
||||
| Mint credentials | none | Gitea can create tokens for bot users with an admin token; nothing in the stack does it |
|
||||
| Provide credentials | `scripts/gitea-api.sh` reads a token file in place; `auth.sh` for pi | Per seat by hand; a launch doesn't set a role's credential |
|
||||
| Variables per system, business, project, agent | one system config, `~/.config/mosaic-dev/config.json` | No business, project or agent layers |
|
||||
| Inter-agent messages | T3 messages addressed by thread id; the Discord connector (#1509) | No bus addressed by role; the thread id is the address |
|
||||
| Proactive decisions | prose rules in AGENTS.md | Not data, not enforced |
|
||||
| Surfacing outstanding decisions | the waiting-on-jason state in the queue; "Input needed:" lines | No decision object, no inbox |
|
||||
| Task management | the queue (`packages/queue`): rows, owners, reviews, a log, a lock | Built for agents; no dates, no UI, nothing for Jason to work in; Vikunja not connected |
|
||||
| PRD and north star | the ratified goals page | No PRD; PRDY exists only in v1 |
|
||||
| Options vs. no interruption | none | Depends on decision classes and the inbox |
|
||||
| Meta-harness | `adapters/pi`, `adapters/mock`; Claude deferred (LAYERS L4) | No Claude or Codex adapter; skills, prompts and hooks aren't generated from roles |
|
||||
| CLI or TUI | `scripts/mosaic launch`, `seat task`, `queue`; per-seat TUI launchers | No front door for Jason |
|
||||
| WebUI | `packages/webui` (control board screen), CHAT-03 chat in review (row 5) | No tasks, decisions or conversation view in one place |
|
||||
|
||||
## Vikunja: integrate, don't annex
|
||||
|
||||
Recommendation: reach Vikunja through its REST API behind a task interface
|
||||
in Mosaic Stack, and keep the agent-side logic in the stack.
|
||||
|
||||
- Vikunja is Go with a Vue front end, under the AGPL-3.0. Annexing it
|
||||
means a Go codebase in a Node repository, every upstream release merged
|
||||
by hand, and AGPL terms on the combined work if Mosaic Stack is ever
|
||||
offered to others over a network.
|
||||
- Its API has scoped tokens, which helps the credential plan: each role
|
||||
gets a token limited to what it does.
|
||||
- v1 tried the other direction, a native kanban that would replace
|
||||
Vikunja (`v1/docs/requirements/native-kanban-sot.md`). Its canon review
|
||||
came back NO-GO with 8 blockers before any code shipped.
|
||||
- Integration can be undone. A fork can't really.
|
||||
|
||||
The queue keeps doing what it does well, which is the agents' lock, review
|
||||
and audit log. Whether Vikunja becomes where tasks live and the queue
|
||||
mirrors it, or the reverse, is the first design question for that piece.
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposed order
|
||||
|
||||
Building the layers one at a time, each finished before the next starts,
|
||||
risks the failure Jason named: machinery with no working system. Sage
|
||||
recommends one thin path through every layer first, then widening.
|
||||
|
||||
**Slice 1, the first working system.** Jason opens `mosaic` in a terminal
|
||||
and talks to the PM role. The PM files a task in the tracker, linked to a
|
||||
PRD requirement, and assigns it to a coder role. The stack launches that
|
||||
agent with the role's contract, variables and credential. The agent works.
|
||||
A gated question shows up in Jason's decision inbox in the CLI. He answers
|
||||
in one word. The task is reviewed and closed, and the CLI and the WebUI
|
||||
both show the trail. Every step is a logged event, so the measures come
|
||||
from data and not from hand tagging.
|
||||
|
||||
What slice 1 needs, in build order:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **PRD for Mosaic Stack.** A PRDY interview with Jason, run by hand. It
|
||||
replaces the goals page as the top of the chain.
|
||||
2. **Profiles, roles and variables.** A role schema with decision classes
|
||||
and a lock; variable layers for system, business, project and agent;
|
||||
one business (Mosaic Stack) and four roles (PM, CTO, coder, reviewer).
|
||||
3. **Decision objects and messages.** A decision record (who raised it,
|
||||
class, options, recommendation, who resolved it, when) and messages
|
||||
addressed by role. T3 and Discord become transports.
|
||||
4. **Tasks.** The tracker interface with the Vikunja adapter, or the queue
|
||||
alone if Jason picks annexing and that becomes a later piece.
|
||||
5. **The `mosaic` CLI and TUI.** One front door: talk to a role, see the
|
||||
inbox, tasks and agents.
|
||||
6. **WebUI.** The same data through the console; CHAT-03 carries on as
|
||||
part of it.
|
||||
7. **Credentials per role.** Provided at launch first. Minting stays
|
||||
gated and comes after slice 1.
|
||||
8. **Meta-harness.** Generate the system prompt, skills and hooks for Pi
|
||||
from role and variables, then add Claude and Codex adapters.
|
||||
|
||||
After slice 1, each layer widens: more roles and businesses, minting,
|
||||
more harnesses, PRDY in code. Measures come last and pick one weak spot at
|
||||
a time, which is what Jason described.
|
||||
|
||||
## What happens to work in flight
|
||||
|
||||
- **Row 5, CHAT-03 I1:** continues; it's WebUI work slice 1 uses.
|
||||
- **Row 32, ledger guideposts:** park it. Only Jason can park.
|
||||
- **Row 7, the weekly ledger:** keep the Monday run as a raw baseline. It
|
||||
costs a command, and no new ledger work.
|
||||
- **Goal 2, rows 11 and 13:** the queue stays as the agents' lock and log.
|
||||
Row 11's second accepted brief can be the first slice brief.
|
||||
- **Goal 3, Gate E:** unchanged.
|
||||
- **Goal 4, retiring the fleet:** it needs a working system to move to,
|
||||
so it folds into slice 1. The relaunch idea
|
||||
(`2026-10-04_project-relaunch-roles.md`) becomes the roles piece.
|
||||
|
||||
## Open questions
|
||||
|
||||
- Storage. The canon keeps config and run records in files. Tasks,
|
||||
messages and decisions at this scale may want a database. That's an
|
||||
invariant question for later, and it doesn't block the PRD interview.
|
||||
- Which roles a business must declare, and which are optional.
|
||||
- Whether Sage holds PM or CTO for Mosaic Stack once roles exist.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user