docs(framework): add agency & persistence patterns to config + guides
Seven additive behavioral rules distilled from the Claude Code system prompt, competitor autonomous-agent prompts (Devin/Cline/Cursor/Windsurf/ Droid/Manus/Replit), and Fable 5 consumer-prompt deltas: - SOUL.md: own-mistakes stance, USER.md formatting override, reversibility heuristic (hard-gate-reconciled), injected-content caution - AGENTS.md: Block vs. Done semantics - E2E-DELIVERY.md: failure-handling retry budget, pre-done self-interrogation - ORCHESTRATOR.md: worker-prompt-quality standard, trust-but-verify - QA-TESTING.md: integrity guardrails Additive only (+37/-0). Independent review passed (one remediation applied). Refs #542 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
@@ -595,6 +595,15 @@ Review: needs-qa (1 blocker, 2 high) → QA task {task_id}-QA created
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Worker Prompt Quality (Hard Rule)
|
||||
|
||||
Brief each worker as if it just walked in with zero prior context — terse prompts produce shallow, generic work.
|
||||
|
||||
1. State the goal, the constraints, and what has already been ruled out.
|
||||
2. Include concrete `file:line` references and the exact expected output/return form.
|
||||
3. Never delegate understanding: the orchestrator owns synthesis. Do not pass "based on your findings, decide what to do" — give the worker a bounded, well-specified task.
|
||||
4. When tasks are independent, dispatch workers in parallel; reserve sequential dispatch for genuine dependencies.
|
||||
|
||||
## Worker Prompt Template
|
||||
|
||||
Construct this from the task row and pass to worker via Task tool:
|
||||
@@ -653,6 +662,8 @@ End your response with this JSON block:
|
||||
`status=success` means "code pushed and ready for orchestrator integration gates";
|
||||
it does NOT mean PR merged/CI green/issue closed.
|
||||
|
||||
**Trust but verify (Hard Rule):** A worker's reported `status` describes what it intended, not necessarily what landed. Before accepting `status=success`, the orchestrator MUST confirm the outcome independently — verify the commit SHA exists on the branch, the expected files changed, and quality gates/tests actually ran green. Never relay a worker self-report as completion evidence.
|
||||
|
||||
## Post-Coding Review
|
||||
|
||||
After you complete and push your changes, the orchestrator will independently
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user