141 lines
6.8 KiB
Markdown
141 lines
6.8 KiB
Markdown
**Intent of this file:** This file is intended for new-task-prompt development
|
|
and orchestrator templates. It is NOT for actual task research and creation. If
|
|
your current job is to create, plan, or format a task file, please refer to
|
|
`tasks/GUIDELINES.md` and ignore the templates in this file.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Orchestrator Meta-Prompts (`tasks/path.md`)
|
|
|
|
## 1. Task Planning Template (System Analyst)
|
|
|
|
_Use this template to instruct an agent (such as Jules) to take a technical
|
|
idea, critically analyze the existing codebase, identify risks/alternatives, and
|
|
draft a compliant task file in `tasks/new/`._
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
**Role:** Act as a System Analyst and Solutions Architect. Do not execute code or modify the codebase during this session. Your sole deliverable is to generate a task file in tasks/new/.
|
|
|
|
**The Objective:** [State exactly what you want to achieve.]
|
|
|
|
**Suggestions & Initial Thoughts:**
|
|
*Here is our starting hypothesis. Treat these as ideas to evaluate, not rigid requirements:*
|
|
* [Suggestion 1]
|
|
* [Suggestion 2]
|
|
|
|
**Your Task:**
|
|
1. Research the codebase and analyze this objective against our current architecture.
|
|
2. Critically evaluate our suggestions: Do they make technical sense, or is there a cleaner, more native, or more modular approach?
|
|
3. Map out the `Target Files`, prerequisites/dependencies, and explicitly identify potential architectural risks, regressions, or friction.
|
|
4. Draft the task file in `tasks/new/` strictly adhering to the naming conventions, header metadata, and mandatory structure defined in `tasks/GUIDELINES.md`.
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 2. Implementation Execution Template (Developer)
|
|
|
|
_Use this template when ready to command an agent to execute the work outlined
|
|
in an existing task file._
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
**Role:** Act as an Implementation Engineer.
|
|
|
|
**The Task:** Please review and execute the plan detailed in `[tasks/new/YYYY-MMDD.XX.agent.type.scope.title-HHMM.md]`.
|
|
|
|
**Directives:**
|
|
1. Follow the strict 4-step state machine (Research -> Implementation -> Quality Gates -> Review).
|
|
2. Apply minimal, pure functional modifications.
|
|
3. Ensure all downstream pipeline steps and context contracts remain intact.
|
|
4. Run all quality gates (`deno fmt`, `deno task lint`, `deno task check`, `deno task test`).
|
|
5. Run ONLY unit tests (`deno task test` / `deno test --allow-all`). Do NOT execute `deno task start` or `deno task dev` (live database daemons are not running in sandbox containers).
|
|
6. Upon successful completion and verification, update the task status according to `tasks/GUIDELINES.md`.
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 3. Implementation & Code Quality Audit Template (`tasks/audit-2.md`)
|
|
|
|
_Use this template to perform an exhaustive post-implementation audit on code
|
|
changes, PR branches, or completed tasks before merging or deploying. See
|
|
complete protocol in
|
|
[`tasks/audit-2.md`](file:///home/tylerg/p/data/auth-yes/tasks/audit-2.md)._
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
**Role:** Act as a Senior Security, Architecture & Quality Assurance Auditor. Do not modify production code or push commits during this audit session. Your sole deliverable is an objective Code Quality & Security Audit Report.
|
|
|
|
**The Scope:** [Specify target branch, recent commits, modified files, or completed task in `tasks/wip/TASK_FILENAME.md`].
|
|
|
|
**Your Task:**
|
|
Audit the actual codebase changes against the original task specification and our system guidelines (`AGENTS.md`, `docs/`) using the 5-point implementation rubric in `tasks/audit-2.md`:
|
|
1. Specification & Scope Fidelity
|
|
2. Zero-Trust Security & Boundary Safety
|
|
3. Modularity & Clean Architecture
|
|
4. Quality Gates & Test Evidence
|
|
5. Runtime & Client-Side Integrity
|
|
|
|
**Deliverable:**
|
|
Provide a structured code audit report with:
|
|
- **Overall Implementation Score:** [e.g. 5/5, 4/5, or Letter Grade]
|
|
- **Verdict:** [MERGE READY / REVISION REQUIRED / BLOCKED]
|
|
- **Successes & Verified Achievements:** Exact functionality verified and working as expected.
|
|
- **Deficiencies, Regressions & Failure Risks:** Technical bugs, unhandled errors, UX regressions, or security gaps found.
|
|
- **Actionable Remediation Suggestions:** Specific, prioritized code fixes or refactoring steps needed before final approval.
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 4. Task Plan Review & Critique Template (`tasks/audit-1.md`)
|
|
|
|
_Use this template to critically audit, score, and refine new task files in
|
|
`tasks/new/` before approving them for implementation. See complete protocol in
|
|
[`tasks/audit-1.md`](file:///home/tylerg/p/data/auth-yes/tasks/audit-1.md)._
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
**Role:** Act as a Principal Systems Architect and Task Quality Critic. Do not modify the codebase or execute code during this session. Your sole deliverable is a structured task critique report.
|
|
|
|
**The Scope:** Review the newly generated task file in `[tasks/new/TASK_FILENAME.md]` against our master architectural guidelines (`AGENTS.md`, `docs/`, `tasks/GUIDELINES.md`).
|
|
|
|
**Your Task:**
|
|
Critically evaluate the proposed task plan against the 5-point quality rubric in `tasks/audit-1.md`:
|
|
1. Metadata & Standards Compliance
|
|
2. Architectural Alignment & Safety
|
|
3. Purity & Simplicity (Avoiding bloat)
|
|
4. Implementation Precision & State Machine
|
|
5. Testing & Quality Gate Rigor
|
|
|
|
**Deliverable:**
|
|
Provide a structured critique report with:
|
|
- **Overall Score / Rating:** [e.g. 5/5, 4/5, or Letter Grade]
|
|
- **Verdict:** [APPROVED / NEEDS REVISION / REJECTED]
|
|
- **Strengths & Plan Alignment:** Key architectural insights captured in the plan.
|
|
- **Identified Gaps & Potential Risks:** Missing edge cases, unaddressed failure modes, or UX/architectural oversights.
|
|
- **Concrete Suggested Revisions:** Exact adjustments, additions, or rewordings to incorporate into the task file before implementation starts.
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 5. Architecture & Root-Cause Investigation Template (Investigator)
|
|
|
|
_Use this template to instruct an agent to deeply investigate complex bugs,
|
|
reproduction anomalies, or distributed edge cases without modifying production
|
|
code._
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
**Role:** Act as a Principal Systems & Security Investigator.
|
|
|
|
**The Scope:** [Describe anomaly, bug symptoms, error logs, and affected components.]
|
|
|
|
**Directives:**
|
|
- **STRICT CONSTRAINT:** Experiment, research, and report ONLY. Do not modify existing production code or create PRs with production changes.
|
|
- Place all reproduction test scripts and experiments in `scratch/` or hermetic test harnesses.
|
|
|
|
**Your Task:**
|
|
1. Formulate clear, falsifiable hypotheses based on observed logs and symptoms.
|
|
2. Design and execute minimal reproduction scripts or benchmarks to test each hypothesis in isolation.
|
|
3. Trace data flows through database, caching layers, ingress proxies, and client runtime engines.
|
|
4. Document the definitive root cause and rank potential architectural solutions from most reliable to least, with explicit rationale and trade-offs.
|
|
|
|
**Deliverable:**
|
|
Author an investigative report in `scratch/INVESTIGATIVE_REPORT.md` detailing verified findings, discarded hypotheses, and ranked solutions.
|
|
```
|