Give test-writer/programmer a conventions nudge up front, deep references on gate failure #506

Open
opened 2026-08-25 13:57:56 +00:00 by jared · 0 comments
Owner

Context

Pipeline runs regularly burn 2-3 repair rounds per agent on lint/style corrections. Current design principle (reference/standards-and-conventions.md:44-47) gives the programmer no standing standards: quality rules arrive only as gate feedback. User decision 2026-08-25: keep expecting mistakes, but (a) inject a short conventions nudge (not a book) into test-writer/programmer briefs before code is written, and (b) on a gate failure, have the agent pull the in-depth rationale for the specific violated cop from our references into context, so fixes are conceptual, not guesswork. This supersedes the gate-feedback-only principle and requires a superseding ADR.

Tasks

  • Gather evidence from 1-2 additional pipeline sessions (the 2026-08-24 #502 run is contaminated by a wrong-brief error): which cops fire, how many rounds they cost
  • Draft the short up-front conventions nudge for test-writer and programmer briefs
  • Design the on-failure deep-reference pull (map cop name -> reference doc section)
  • Supersede the gate-feedback-only principle via /os-adr:create (supersedes the ADR behind reference/standards-and-conventions.md:44-47)
  • Wire into briefs/agents and measure repair-round count before vs after

Acceptance criteria

  • Superseding ADR recorded
  • Nudge present in briefs; on-failure reference pull documented in agent files
  • Evidence note comparing repair rounds before/after on at least one real run

Origin

  • Trigger: analysis of session ccd9c3d0 (#502 pipeline run, bound_exhausted after 3 programmer repair rounds)
  • Improvised this session: none
  • Chain: repeated repair rounds <- agents lack standing conventions <- DESIGN (reference/standards-and-conventions.md:44-47, gate-feedback-only principle)
  • Root candidate: this ticket
## Context Pipeline runs regularly burn 2-3 repair rounds per agent on lint/style corrections. Current design principle (reference/standards-and-conventions.md:44-47) gives the programmer no standing standards: quality rules arrive only as gate feedback. User decision 2026-08-25: keep expecting mistakes, but (a) inject a short conventions nudge (not a book) into test-writer/programmer briefs before code is written, and (b) on a gate failure, have the agent pull the in-depth rationale for the specific violated cop from our references into context, so fixes are conceptual, not guesswork. This supersedes the gate-feedback-only principle and requires a superseding ADR. ## Tasks - [ ] Gather evidence from 1-2 additional pipeline sessions (the 2026-08-24 #502 run is contaminated by a wrong-brief error): which cops fire, how many rounds they cost - [ ] Draft the short up-front conventions nudge for test-writer and programmer briefs - [ ] Design the on-failure deep-reference pull (map cop name -> reference doc section) - [ ] Supersede the gate-feedback-only principle via /os-adr:create (supersedes the ADR behind reference/standards-and-conventions.md:44-47) - [ ] Wire into briefs/agents and measure repair-round count before vs after ## Acceptance criteria - [ ] Superseding ADR recorded - [ ] Nudge present in briefs; on-failure reference pull documented in agent files - [ ] Evidence note comparing repair rounds before/after on at least one real run ## Origin - Trigger: analysis of session ccd9c3d0 (#502 pipeline run, bound_exhausted after 3 programmer repair rounds) - Improvised this session: none - Chain: repeated repair rounds <- agents lack standing conventions <- DESIGN (reference/standards-and-conventions.md:44-47, gate-feedback-only principle) - Root candidate: this ticket
Sign in to join this conversation.
No milestone
No project
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set

Reference
jared/cc-os#506
No description provided.