60c64c70e8
Forensic triage of a 24h run reconstructed the dominant gateway.rejected loops from the audit_log. After earlier deploys fixed the i_will_plan crash and the open_pr push-gap, three real, recurring-capable burn loops remained. This fixes them at the architecture level, not by prompt-nagging. journal:decision write-then-gate (the dominant completion-path blocker): PM decision-point verbs required a separate note(scope='decision') call before the verb, which loaded/weak models forget to chain — so complete and unblock hit a tracing_gap (journal:decision missing) and respawn-looped, stranding finished tasks forever. Each verb now auto-records its OWN rationale as the journal:decision before the gate runs (the proven i_am_blocked -> write_struggle pattern), so the gate passes off real, persisted reasoning. unblock gains a required `reason` (threaded MCP tool -> request schema -> routes -> choreographer); delegate derives the decision from its title + description; complete/submit_up/submit_root/escalate_up/ escalate_to_ceo reuse their existing notes/reason. The gate still runs as defense-in-depth; the auto-record is idempotent within the decision window and best-effort. Adds JournalService.write_decision and Choreographer._ensure_pm_decision. open_pr empty-diff 422: an overlapping-decomposition leaf with zero commits vs its base makes GitHub 422 "No commits between ...". The generic invalid_state "retry" looped the dev 15x on one task. open_pr now steers to a terminal i_am_blocked hand-off so the PM completes or cancels the redundant leaf. owns_task stale-agent loop (41x): a superseded agent (task reassigned away) calling i_am_done/open_pr got a PRECONDITION_OWNERSHIP tracing_gap it read as a fixable precondition and retried forever. Both verbs now short-circuit with the clear not_authorized "no longer yours -> give_me_work" steer that resume/unclaim already use. RAG docs updated for the new unblock(reason) signature; CHANGELOG entries added under 0.11.0 (unreleased). open_pr refactored into _open_pr_preflight_rejection + _open_pr_failure_env to stay within the return-count and complexity budgets. Co-authored-by: Renn F <rennf93@users.noreply.github.com>
8.2 KiB
Task Management Tools
There is no roboco_task_* tool surface. Tasks move through the lifecycle via flow verbs on the roboco-flow MCP server. Each verb is role-scoped — you only see the ones your role is allowed to call (the spawn manifest registers them per role). Every verb returns an Envelope whose next field tells you what to call next; trust it rather than guessing state.
The verbs below are grouped by who calls them.
Developer flow
give_me_work() # returns your most-actionable pending task
i_will_work_on(task_id, plan="...")
# claims + sets plan + starts; auto-creates and
# checks out feature/{team}/{task-hierarchy}
commit(message, files=None) # content tool — repeat per change (auto-pushed)
open_pr(task_id) # pushes branch + opens the PR
i_am_done(task_id, notes="") # verifying -> awaiting_qa (PR must already be open)
i_am_blocked(task_id, reason) # external dependency; cell PM unblocks
unclaim(task_id) # release a claimed task back to the queue
resume(task_id) # recover a paused task after compact/restart
i_am_idle() # no work in your queue right now
There is no separate claim / start / pause verb — i_will_work_on composes claim + set-plan + start atomically, and i_am_done composes verify + submit-qa. Branches are auto-created on i_will_work_on; do not checkout by hand.
QA flow
give_me_work() # returns an awaiting_qa task
claim_review(task_id) # claim for review (auto-checks-out dev branch)
pass_review(task_id, notes) # awaiting_qa -> awaiting_documentation
fail_review(task_id, issues=[...])
# awaiting_qa -> needs_revision (dev gets it back)
unclaim(task_id) / resume(task_id) / i_am_idle()
notes (on pass_review) and issues (on fail_review) must be substantive — the enforcement layer rejects empty or near-empty content. QA cannot review its own dev work (self-review guard rejects on claim_review).
Documenter flow
give_me_work() # returns an awaiting_documentation task
claim_doc_task(task_id) # claim the doc phase
commit(message, files) # commit the doc files you write
i_documented(task_id, notes, files)
# awaiting_documentation -> awaiting_pm_review
Documentation tasks are not delegated — the lifecycle auto-creates the doc phase after a code task passes QA.
Cell PM flow
triage() # list actionable tasks in your cell
i_will_plan(task_id, plan, approach)
# claim + plan + start a parent task
delegate(parent_task_id, title, description, assigned_to, team, task_type,
nature, estimated_complexity, acceptance_criteria,
covers_parent_criteria=[...])
# create a subtask; covers_parent_criteria maps
# it to the parent ACs it is responsible for
reassign(task_id, assigned_to) # move a subtask to a different agent
unblock(task_id, reason) # blocked -> in_progress (PM only); reason is
# recorded as your journal:decision (no separate
# note needed)
submit_up(task_id, notes) # open cell->root PR; -> awaiting_pr_review
# (the cell PR reviewer gates it; after pr_pass
# the same Cell PM completes + merges)
complete(task_id, notes) # awaiting_pm_review -> completed (merges leaf PR)
escalate_up(task_id, reason) # escalate to your escalation target
After i_will_plan and each delegate, the envelope includes a coverage view of the parent — parent_ac_coverage (per-criterion id / text / claimed / verified) and unclaimed_parent_acs (criteria no subtask covers yet). A parent cannot idle with unclaimed criteria, nor complete / submit_up / escalate_to_ceo until every criterion traces to a child that passed QA. These gates stay inert until you start declaring covers_parent_criteria. See docs/rag/workflows/task-planning.md.
Delegation rules (enforced): main_pm -> cell_pm; cell_pm -> its team's devs. Cell PMs receive planning-typed parent tasks; devs get code/research (UX devs also design). Always create subtasks via delegate with parent_task_id set — there is no standalone task-create verb for agents.
Main PM flow
The Main PM shares most Cell PM verbs (i_will_plan, delegate, complete, unblock, triage, escalate_up), adds the verbs below, and — unlike a Cell PM — has no submit_up or reassign. Its bubble-up verb is submit_root (the root analogue of the Cell PM's submit_up):
triage_all() # list actionable tasks across all teams
submit_root(task_id, notes) # open root->master PR; -> awaiting_pr_review
# (the main PR reviewer gates it; after pr_pass,
# complete escalates to the CEO)
escalate_to_ceo(task_id, reason)
# awaiting_pm_review -> awaiting_ceo_approval
give_me_work() # Main PM may also pull work directly
For a code root the Main PM must submit_root first — that opens the root→master PR and enters the in-path gate (awaiting_pr_review); only after the main reviewer pr_passes it does complete escalate to the CEO. A branchless coordination root (product fan-out, no repo) skips the gate and is completed/escalated directly. The Main PM never merges to master — complete escalates and only the CEO merges the root→master PR.
Board flow (Product Owner / Head of Marketing)
triage() # list actionable tasks in scope
escalate_to_ceo(task_id, reason)
i_am_idle()
The Board cannot claim, create, complete, or cancel tasks. Strategic decisions are escalated to the CEO.
Auditor flow
triage() # read-only list of actionable tasks
i_am_idle()
The Auditor is a silent observer: read-only triage, no say/dm/ notify, no claim/complete/cancel.
PR Reviewer flow
give_me_work() # returns an inbound-PR review task
claim_pr_review(task_id) # claim it (planless, branchless — read-only)
post_pr_review(task_id, ...) # posts one change-request on the PR; task -> completed
i_am_idle()
The PR Reviewer reviews inbound external/fork (and, behind a flag, internal) PRs the org did not open. It is read-only: no commit/open_pr/merge, no say/dm — the change-request is posted server-side on the PR itself, and the CEO decides Supersede/Dismiss from the PR Review Queue.
The same role also runs the in-path PR-review gate on the org's own assembled delivery PRs — the merge-level review before the PM merges:
claim_gate_review(task_id) # claim an awaiting_pr_review task; returns the assembled diff
pr_pass(task_id, notes) # assembled PR is correct -> awaiting_pm_review (the PM merges)
pr_fail(task_id, issues) # send it back -> needs_revision, like a QA fail
Both verdicts are also posted on the assembled PR itself as a GitHub review (server-side, bot account) so the decision is visible on the PR the PM merges: pr_pass → APPROVE, pr_fail → REQUEST_CHANGES — except the root→master PR, which only ever gets a plain COMMENT (only the CEO acts on master).
A cell reviewer (be/fe/ux-pr-reviewer) reviews its cell's assembled cell→root PR; pr-reviewer-1 reviews the root→master PR for the cross-cell integration seam, before the CEO sees it.
Cancel
Cancelling a task (any non-terminal status -> cancelled) is restricted to PM roles and the CEO. There is no agent verb to cancel — it is a PM/CEO operation through the lifecycle.
Progress
Record progress against your plan with the progress content tool (on roboco-do), not a task verb:
progress(task_id, message="API skeleton landed", plan_step="2")
Your plan's steps are the progress checklist; the percentage is derived from completed steps — you do not set it.