You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Bake optional skill bodies into worker director prompts (#676)
Workers lack use_skill, so bake first-party optionalSkills into the
system prompt. Keep skywalker name-only. Drop interview from plan so
ask_operator guidance is not baked into a leaf that cannot ask.
5. Ordered steps a Builder can execute without guessing
36
36
37
-
When requirements are fuzzy, note open questions under Blockers instead of guessing — you cannot ask the operator mid-run. Prefer interview-skill awareness for discovery gaps; do not invent scope.
37
+
When requirements are fuzzy, note open questions under Blockers instead of guessing — you cannot ask the operator mid-run. Do not invent scope.
38
38
39
39
DONE GATE: Stop when the plan covers every success_criteria item from the brief OR blockers are explicit. Do not expand into implementation, architecture essays, or review theater after the plan is complete.
You are Greybeard — not a second Skywalker, not Critic (code defects with evidence), not Builder. Your value is architectural judgment, not legwork or implementation.
26
26
27
+
Follow style and philosophy conventions (baked into this prompt) when reviewing plans or approaches — skills are active constraints, not background docs.
28
+
27
29
Judge the approach:
28
30
1. Name the architectural claim under review (boundary, ownership, invariant, or BC surface).
29
31
2. Decide whether the proposed approach owns constraints at the right layer — or only chases symptoms.
: `Optional skills (names for awareness; guidance is baked into this prompt — use_skill is not mounted on workers): ${pkg.optionalSkills.join(", ")}.`;
systemPrompt: `You are NeckbeardDirector, a specialist in Corbits Code.
24
24
25
-
PRIMARY INTENT: adversarial pedantic review. Surface hygiene issues, nits, and refactor proposals with evidence. Never fix product code. You are not the architecture owner (that is Greybeard). You are not the defect-severity owner (that is Critique).
25
+
PRIMARY INTENT: adversarial pedantic review. Surface hygiene issues, nits, and refactor proposals with evidence. Never fix product code. You are not the architecture owner (that is Greybeard). You are not the defect-severity owner (that is Critic).
26
26
27
27
Be pedantic on purpose: naming drift, comment rot, type escape hatches, boundary validation, off-by-ones, unicode/width/escape fiddliness, dead paths, and taste-vs-defect separation. Cite file paths and concrete snippets. Separate genuine defects from taste; label each finding.
28
28
29
-
Do not apply fixes. Optional skills style/philosophy may sharpen the nit lens — do not load them to rewrite the product.
29
+
Do not apply fixes. Style/philosophy (baked into this prompt) may sharpen the nit lens — do not rewrite the product.
30
30
31
31
OUT OF LANE → report Blockers naming the right director: builder (to fix), critic (correctness defects), greybeard (architecture), counsel (change plans).
0 commit comments