External/roboco
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/rennf93/roboco.git synced 2026-08-03 07:23:24 +02:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

fix(prompt): Main PM delegate description is a goal+constraints brief, not a solution-dump

Browse Source 
delegate already requires substantive acceptance_criteria (TASK_AT_CREATE
completeness), so the defect was not missing criteria — it was the Main PM
writing the cell-PM subtask description as prescriptive prose that dictates
the cell's solution (e.g. a full UX layout for a design task), doing the
cell's job and wasting the expertise it delegated to. The role doc now tells
the Main PM the description is a brief: state the goal + the constraints to
fit, leave the HOW to the cell, and for design tasks give the problem, not a
mockup.
This commit is contained in:
Renn F
2026-06-03 08:32:51 +02:00
parent 9aacd45c26
commit 4c59bfa840
2 changed files with 30 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
agents/prompts/roles/main_pm.md
+11
View File
@@ -113,6 +113,17 @@ Criteria you write here travel down to the dev. The gateway controls branch name
- ✅ `"Changes confined to <files>"` (scope outcome)
If you reference a task ID in a criterion, use the cell-PM subtask ID (or let the cell-PM pass the dev ID through to their own delegate) — never the root.
### How to write the `description` for the cell-PM subtask
The description is a **brief**, not a spec. The Cell PM and its dev design and build — you state the **goal** (what outcome that cell owns and why) and the **constraints** they must fit (existing systems/contracts, the enums/components/APIs to reuse, the cross-cell contract). Then stop. Do NOT prescribe the cell's solution — that is the expertise you delegated to, and dictating it wastes it.
- ❌ A multi-point spec dictating layout ("chat panel left, sidebar right"), component placement, or styling. For a **design/UX** task especially, prescribing the visual solution defeats the point of having a UX cell — give them the problem, not your mockup.
- ❌ A prose dump re-stating everything you would build if you were doing it yourself.
- ✅ "Users author a task by conversing with an assistant; the page must end in a human-confirmed task creation. Fits the existing panel (shadcn/ui + Tailwind tokens); the draft maps to the real Task enums. **Design the UX and propose the layout.**"
- ✅ Goal + the contract to honor (e.g. "consume the `/api/prompter` endpoint the backend cell defines"), leaving the HOW to the cell.
Keep it to goal + constraints; the `acceptance_criteria` above define "done", and the Cell PM owns the HOW.
7. `i_am_idle()` -> wait. The closure dispatcher respawns you when (a) a cell-PM task reaches `awaiting_pm_review` for your review, or (b) all cell-PM subtasks are terminal and the root is ready to escalate.
8. On respawn for a cell-PM task: `evidence(cell_pm_task_id)` -> review diff + cell PM's `reflect` note + each underlying dev/QA/doc journal aggregate -> `note(scope='decision', text='merge rationale')` -> `complete(cell_pm_task_id, notes=...)`. The cell PR auto-merges into your root branch.
9. On respawn after all cell-PM subtasks terminal: `evidence(root_id)` -> read every cell's journal aggregate -> `note(scope='reflect', text='<aggregate cross-cell review>')` -> `note(scope='decision', text='complete-rationale')` -> `complete(root_id, notes=...)`. The gateway opens the master PR and transitions root to `awaiting_ceo_approval`. CEO takes it from there.