Files
roboco/docs/rag/tools/task-tools.md
T
aa15dc40cc Feature/video artifact verification (#537)
* fix(release): CI wait polls the prod rung; escape the header tooltip apostrophe

get_latest_ci_conclusion defaults to the ladder's head rung, so
wait_for_ci searched slave for a release commit that lives on master
and timed out after 40 minutes with the run already green. The wait
now passes the prod branch explicitly. Also fixes the
react/no-unescaped-entities error that turned master's Panel CI red.

* fix(panel,video): dead dialog triggers behind tooltips; dotted composition ids render

HelpTip nested inside a Dialog/AlertDialog trigger puts the trigger's
click handler on the Tooltip root, which renders no DOM — the agents
Spawn item and the KB Reindex-All / Delete-index confirms were dead.
Tooltips now wrap the triggers. The video renderer accepts interior
single dots in composition ids (release-0.25.0) with '..' still
unrepresentable, and propose_video refuses an unrenderable id at
authoring time.

* fix(dispatch): restart-safe PM review turns

A leaf task in awaiting_pm_review had no periodic pickup: the closure
dispatcher bailed on childless tasks and skipped PR-bearing review
tasks as already-promoted, assuming the submit-time PM session was
still alive — an assumption every restart breaks. Proven live on the
docs-sync leaf after the 0.25.0 redeploy, which also dependency-blocked
its sibling dev task. Childless awaiting_pm_review tasks now flow to
the PM's review turn, and the merge turn respawns its PM when none is
active.

* feat(video): verify the rendered artifact, not the source

The 14s release-0.25.0 cut shipped with only one of four scenes visibly
registering: the dev authored DOM, the smoke asserted DOM, QA read code —
nobody consumed the rendered MP4 before the CEO did. Close that loop, and
the reject loop behind it:

- sidecar frames mode: POST /render with frames=1..32 renders the cut,
  ffprobes the REAL duration, extracts midpoint-sampled keyframe PNGs
  (timestamps in filenames), streams a tar.gz back with X-Video-Duration
- request_render do-verb (developer/QA, request_sandbox's shape): renders
  the caller's ACTUAL composition — dev's own worktree (head_sha/dirty
  provenance), QA a read-only git-archive export of the assembled branch —
  extracts frames to the container-shared .previews/ path, stamps the
  render_preview marker, returns the paths as envelope evidence
- gate: i_am_done on a source=video task refuses without a stamped
  render_preview (Requirement.RENDER_VERIFIED; canonical source string
  moved to foundation as markers.VIDEO_TASK_SOURCE; mirrored in the
  possibilities-matrix fast path so it cannot bypass the check)
- QA claim_review evidence carries video_context (composition id, the
  dev's preview, a re-render instruction) so review checks output
- dev spawn prompt block + a 4th authoring AC order Read-every-frame
  verification before submitting
- reject -> re-author: a CEO reject with a reason opens a fresh authoring
  task carrying the verbatim feedback + a revise-in-place pointer at the
  existing composition (best-effort, never fails the reject) — rejection
  feedback no longer dies on the cancelled draft

E2E: rendered the committed release-0.25.0 composition through the new
frames mode locally — the returned keyframes show exactly the reported
failure (blank frame at 5.8s, only 'Env ladder' by 12.8s), the check the
fleet was missing.

---------

Co-authored-by: Renn F <rennf93@users.noreply.github.com>
2026-07-16 19:49:26 +02:00

12 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="", resolved_findings=None)
                                # verifying -> awaiting_qa (PR must already be open);
                                # on a bounced task, name every open ledger finding
                                # via resolved_findings=[{finding_id, commit?, note?}]
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, findings=[{file?, line?, severity, criterion?, expected, actual, fix?, evidence?}])
                                # awaiting_qa -> needs_revision (dev gets it back);
                                # the deprecated issues=[str] shim still works this release
unclaim(task_id) / resume(task_id) / i_am_idle()

notes (on pass_review) and each findings entry (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). Every fail_review finding is persisted to the append-only revision-findings ledger and rendered into qa_notes; a soft nudge fires above 5 findings, a hard reject above 10. On a round ≥2 review, claim_review also returns prior_findings (the full ledger) so you check what was filed before. See docs/rag/architecture/review-findings.md.

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, resolved_findings=None)
                                # open cell->root PR; -> awaiting_pr_review
                                # (the cell PR reviewer gates it; after pr_pass
                                #  the same Cell PM completes + merges); a re-submit
                                # after pr_fail must resolve every open finding first
complete(task_id, notes)        # awaiting_pm_review -> completed (merges leaf PR)
request_changes(task_id, findings=[...])
                                # reject a subtask's merge review -> needs_revision,
                                # routed to whoever owns the revision; structured
                                # findings persist to the ledger + render into pm_notes
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, request_changes, 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, resolved_findings=None)
                                # open root->master PR; -> awaiting_pr_review
                                # (the main PR reviewer gates it; after pr_pass,
                                #  complete escalates to the CEO); a re-submit
                                # after pr_fail must resolve every open finding first
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 mastercomplete 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.

The Product Owner additionally has propose_roadmap(cycle_goal, items) — a content tool on roboco-do, not a flow verb, so it doesn't appear above. It authors the weekly board-roadmap-engine exploration cycle (a themed goal + 3-7 item drafts); the CEO approves or rejects each item individually into BACKLOG. See docs/rag/roles/product-owner.md.

Auditor flow

triage()                        # read-only list of actionable tasks
i_am_idle()

The Auditor is a silent observer: read-only triage, no 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
unclaim(task_id)                # release a claimed inbound or gate review back to the pool
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 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 + (on round >=2) prior_findings, the full ledger
pr_pass(task_id, notes)         # assembled PR is correct -> awaiting_pm_review (the PM merges)
pr_fail(task_id, findings=[...])
                                # send it back -> needs_revision, like a QA fail;
                                # the deprecated issues=[str] shim still works this release

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 — except awaiting_ceo_approval -> cancelled, which is CEO-only (a PM cancelling a task already in the CEO's queue would bypass the human approval gate). 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.

Sandbox DB/Redis/Mongo (Developer + QA)

request_sandbox(services=None, extensions=None) — a content tool on roboco-do, not a flow verb — provisions a throwaway sandbox Postgres/Redis/Mongo on demand, for a project that opted in (projects.sandbox_services). Only developer and qa carry it. Omit services for the project's whole opted-in set; requesting one outside it is rejected naming the allowed set. extensions is an optional per-service map of extensions/modules to activate (e.g. {"postgres": ["vector"]}), unioned with the project's standing sandbox_extensions set and bounded by a fixed allowlist (pg: vector/postgis/pg_trgm/citext/uuid-ossp; redis: search/json/bloom — no plpython3u); an unallowed feature or a feature for a non-opted service is rejected naming the allowed set. Creds come back in the envelope's evidence, one entry per service, including ready-to-export ROBOCO_TEST_* values for gate tooling and an available_extensions list of what was activated. Calling it again is a cheap no-op (same creds) as long as the requested features are a subset of the cached set. See docs/rag/architecture/sandbox-db.md.

Video render preview (Developer + QA, video-authoring tasks)

request_render(composition_id=None, orientation="vertical", frame_count=8, input_props=None) — a content tool on roboco-do — renders your ACTUAL HyperFrames composition through the video-renderer sidecar and returns evenly spaced keyframe PNGs. Only valid on a source=video authoring task. Omit composition_id to use the one you already proposed via propose_video. The envelope's evidence.frames lists absolute paths (readable from your container): Read every frame and verify each scene/feature from the brief appears fully and legibly — the composition source looking right is NOT evidence the rendered clip is right. A developer renders their own working tree; QA renders a read-only export of the assembled branch. A successful render stamps the task's render_preview marker — i_am_done on a video task refuses without it. If a scene is missing, clipped, or rushed, fix the composition and call it again. See docs/rag/architecture/video-engine.md.