Files
roboco/docs/rag/tools/task-tools.md
T
60c64c70e8 fix(run-hardening): break PM decision-gate, stale-agent, and empty-diff loops (#255)
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owns_task stale-agent loop (41x): a superseded agent (task reassigned away)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>
2026-06-25 01:07:05 +02:00

147 lines
8.2 KiB
Markdown

# 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
```python
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
```python
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
```python
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
```python
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`):
```python
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_pass`es 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)
```python
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
```python
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
```python
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:
```python
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:
```python
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.