@ai-dev-methodologies/rlp-desk 0.15.2 → 0.15.4

package/docs/plans/strategic-review/rlp-desk-strategic-review.md

@@ -1,125 +0,0 @@
-# rlp-desk 전략 재평가 — autoplan 입력
-
-> **목표**: rlp-desk를 계속 발전시킬지(patch/redesign), 폐기 후 재구성할지(rebuild), 기존 도구로 pivot할지 결정.
-> **핵심 KPI**: blueprint 처음 → 끝 자율 완료. 사람 개입 최소.
-> **현재 상태**: 6주간 10개 bug, 매주 1-2개 신규 발견, manual recovery마저 broken (#10).
-
----
-
-## 1. Vision (BOS dev 합의, 2026 초)
-
-1. ralph-loop를 **fresh-context**로 매번 시작 (컨텍스트 오염 없음)
-2. idea → plan distillation
-3. PRD 정형화
-4. Worker/Verifier 사이클로 반복 개선
-5. **완전 자율화** — 사람 개입 최소
-
-→ 5번이 단일 success criterion. 1-4는 5번을 달성하기 위한 메커니즘.
-
----
-
-## 2. Reality — 6주간 측정된 사실
-
-### Bug 발생 패턴
-
-| # | 일자 | 카테고리 | 회수 가능 | 다음 fix가 노출한 다음 bug |
-|---|---|---|---|---|
-| #1 | 2026-05-01 | LLM-runtime (`.claude/` self-modification gate) | partial — codex worker로 우회 | #2 (tmux session) |
-| #2 | 2026-05-01 | tmux session lifecycle | yes | #3 |
-| #3 | 2026-05-04 | verifier no-progress | yes | #4 (regression of #3) |
-| #4 | 2026-05-05 | #3 regression | partial | #5 |
-| #5 | 2026-05-05 | worker dead on reuse (pane lifecycle) | yes | #6 |
-| #6 | 2026-05-06 | claude worker idle false-positive | yes | #7 |
-| #7 | 2026-05-06 | post-sentinel process race (1m43s drift) | yes | #8 + #10 |
-| #8 | 2026-05-06 | worker incomplete + leader A4 fallback | partial | #10 |
-| #9 | (별도) | verified_us 영속성 (status.json) | yes | — |
-| #10 | 2026-05-07 | leader ignores phase=verify on relaunch — **회수마저 깨짐** | NO (이게 회수 메커니즘) | ? |
-
-**Pattern observed:**
-- 매주 1-2개 신규 bug
-- 절반은 **이전 fix가 노출**한 새 failure mode (regression style)
-- Bug #10이 가장 심각 — 회수 메커니즘 자체가 broken → BLOCKED 시 operator의 manual recovery가 무효화
-
-### Bug 카테고리 분류
-
-| 카테고리 | Bug | 비중 | architectural 필연성? |
-|---|---|---|---|
-| (a) tmux/process lifecycle race | #2, #5, #6, #7 | 40% | **YES** — tmux pane lifecycle은 claude/codex TUI lifecycle과 분리됨. race window가 본질적 |
-| (b) artifact contract / schema | #3, #4, #8, #9 | 40% | partial — schema가 더 strict하면 줄어들지만 LLM이 schema 어기는 빈도가 본질적 |
-| (c) LLM-runtime constraint | #1 | 10% | **YES** — Claude Code의 `.claude/` self-modification gate는 외부 변수 |
-| (d) recovery hygiene | #10 | 10% | accidental — fix 가능 |
-
-→ **80%가 architectural inevitability** (a + c). schema strict + retry는 (b)를 줄이지만 LLM 비결정성이 한계.
-
-### SV gate 한계
-
-- 모든 sv-self-verify-*.sh가 **Worker/Verifier metaphor만 사용** → 실제 LLM agent run 없음
-- grep + unit test + regression의 5-category labeling
-- → 10개 bug가 SV gate 통과 후 production에서 발견됐다는 사실 = **framework이 production failure mode를 cover 못 함**
-- Production failure mode는 **LLM/tmux/network/timing 비결정성** — unit test로 잡을 수 없는 영역
-
-### In-flight 미완 branch
-
-- `feat/native-agent-revert`: P0(Bug #7 fix) + P1(slash native prose 회복) — 미완. Plan: 5 round ralplan 합의됨, codex critic APPROVED
-- `feat/bug10-relaunch-hygiene`: PR-A commit 95c0d4e + SV gate 추가 — 방금 완료, push 안 됨
-
-→ 두 branch 모두 land 안 됨 = 새 bug 발견 시 기존 fix가 무력화될 위험
-
----
-
-## 3. 4가지 옵션
-
-### Option A — Continue patching (현재 path)
-PR-A (Bug #10) → PR-B (bundler) → PR-C (patterns) → 다음 bug → 반복.
-
-### Option B — Fundamental redesign (vision 유지, architecture 재설계)
-**핵심 변경**: tmux pane orchestration 폐기 → Claude Code Native Agent() / subprocess 직접 dispatch. Sentinel file → in-memory channel. 두 변경으로 (a) 카테고리 80%가 제거.
-
-### Option C — Scrap and rebuild (vision 일부 수정)
-6주 코드 폐기. Vision 5번 (완전 자율화)은 유지하되 1번(fresh-context)은 task-isolated subprocess로 재정의. ralph-loop 자체 폐기 가능 — 그냥 plan→worker→verify 사이클로 단순화.
-
-### Option D — Pivot to existing tool
-- ralph plugin (cradle): 가벼움, 기능 부족
-- omc (oh-my-claudecode): /ralph + /ralplan + /omc-teams + /autopilot — 이미 multi-model orchestration 있음
-- superpowers: subagent-driven-development, executing-plans, brainstorming — plan→exec 사이클은 이미 있음
-- claude-devfleet: dmux 기반, multi-agent
-
----
-
-## 4. 평가 항목 (각 옵션마다)
-
-| 항목 | 정의 | 이유 |
-|---|---|---|
-| Vision 보존도 | 5개 vision 중 살아남는 개수 | "완전 자율화" 달성 가능성 |
-| Time-to-first-successful-blueprint | 처음으로 blueprint를 끝까지 자율 완료하는 데 걸리는 시간 | **단일 핵심 KPI** |
-| Sunk cost write-off % | 폐기되는 코드/SV 비율 | 결정의 reversibility |
-| Bug regression 위험 | 새 시스템에서 #1-#10 같은 bug가 다시 나올 확률 | "다음 6주에 또 10개?" |
-| Personal capacity ROI | 1주 투자 시 deliverable | sustainability |
-
----
-
-## 5. In-flight branch 처리 결정
-
-이 평가가 끝난 후 결정:
-- `feat/native-agent-revert`: land / abandon / re-scope?
-- `feat/bug10-relaunch-hygiene`: 이미 commit 95c0d4e, push할까 hold할까?
-
-선택 옵션이 무엇이든 두 branch는 처리 필요.
-
----
-
-## 6. 제약
-
-- BOS dev가 실제 캠페인을 돌려야 함 → short-term (1-2주) patching 불가피
-- rlp-desk는 npm published — breaking change는 user-facing (semver 고려)
-- 분석은 advisory only — 실제 코드 수정/commit/push는 사용자 승인 별도
-
----
-
-## 7. autoplan에 요구 — 이 문서를 입력으로
-
-CEO 관점: rlp-desk가 푸는 문제가 옳은가? 다른 도구로 같은 가치를 이미 얻을 수 있나?
-Eng 관점: 6주간의 architectural pattern을 보면 (a) 80% 카테고리가 patching으로 해결될까? 아니면 redesign이 필연인가?
-DX 관점: rlp-desk는 dev tool — operator(BOS dev)가 매번 30분씩 hand-write recovery를 해야 한다는 사실이 DX failure인가?
-
-각 phase에서 dual voices (Codex + Claude subagent) 실행, consensus table 생성, 4 options steelman.

package/docs/plans/v0.15-stabilization-plan.md

@@ -1,178 +0,0 @@
-# rlp-desk Stabilization Plan (v0.15.x → v0.16.x)
-
-> **Status**: ACTIVE. Replaces the misdirected 2026-05-07 "pivot to omc" decision (PR #8 redirect via this plan).
-> **Goal**: bring rlp-desk to omc /team/ralph/ralplan level of reliability **while preserving rlp-desk's self-driving advantages**.
-> **Non-goal**: pivoting away from rlp-desk. omc is the **benchmark**, not the replacement.
-
----
-
-## 0. Why this plan exists (correction note)
-
-On 2026-05-07 morning I (the assistant) ran `plan-ceo-review` on the question "rlp-desk vs omc /team" and produced a recommendation to enter maintenance mode and pivot to omc. The user immediately corrected: *the goal was always to make rlp-desk work as reliably as omc, NOT to replace it*.
-
-This plan is the corrected direction: stabilize rlp-desk by learning from omc's patterns, applying them to rlp-desk's substrate, while protecting the four real differentiators that make rlp-desk worth using in the first place.
-
-The misdirected commit `229e1b6` (the "maintenance mode" banner + FROZEN doc) is now reverted in this PR. The pivot prompt-optimizer artifact and BOS validation plan stay on disk but are deferred — they may become useful later as a comparison study, but they are not the active path.
-
----
-
-## 1. The vision (preserved verbatim)
-
-1. ralph-loop fresh-context per iteration (no context pollution)
-2. idea → plan distillation
-3. PRD formalization
-4. Worker/Verifier cycles with iterative improvement
-5. **Full autonomy — minimum operator intervention**
-
-This vision is the core. Stabilization is in service of it, not a substitute for it.
-
----
-
-## 2. Differentiators to preserve (rlp-desk-only)
-
-These four are the reason rlp-desk exists separately from omc. Stabilization work MUST NOT compromise them:
-
-1. **Multi-engine parallel consensus per iteration**: `--consensus all` runs claude AND codex on every verification, then reconciles. omc /ralph supports `--critic=codex` but as a single critic, not parallel consensus.
-2. **Multi-mission queue + cross-mission analytics**: `RLP_BACKGROUND=1` chains missions and tracks cross-mission metrics. omc /team is single-task.
-3. **BLOCK_TAGS P1-D failure taxonomy**: structured `reason_category × recoverable × suggested_action` classification. omc emits simpler verdicts (pass/fail/blocked).
-4. **Structured SV reports**: post-campaign analytics at `~/.claude/ralph-desk/analytics/<slug>/self-verification-report-NNN.md`. omc has lighter `progress.txt`.
-
-These four ARE the value proposition. The stabilization work below is about making the substrate that delivers them as reliable as omc's.
-
----
-
-## 3. The 10-bug regression pattern (what we're hardening against)
-
-Six weeks (2026-05-01 to 2026-05-07), 10 bugs, each prior fix exposing the next. Categorized:
-
-| Cat | Bugs | Root cause cluster |
-|---|---|---|
-| (a) tmux/process lifecycle race | #5, #6, #7, #10 | Long-lived TUI processes in tmux panes; sentinel polling races; recovery hygiene |
-| (b) artifact contract / schema | #3, #4, #8, #9 | Worker/Verifier output contract violations; LLM non-determinism on schema; verified_us persistence |
-| (c) LLM-runtime constraint | #1 | Claude Code `.claude/` self-modification gate blocking sentinel writes |
-| (d) recovery hygiene | #10 | Manual recovery on relaunch silently overwritten |
-
-**Per category, what omc does differently** (preliminary — to be verified empirically in §5):
-
-- **(a) Lifecycle race**: omc /team uses Claude Code native team primitives (`TeamCreate`, `TaskCreate`, `SendMessage`). No tmux, no long-lived TUI, no sentinel polling. Process lifecycle = subagent lifecycle = single Claude Code call. Race window does not exist.
-- **(b) Contract violations**: omc /ralph uses `prd.json` with `passes: bool` per story + reviewer verifies acceptance criteria. Simpler schema = less surface for LLM to violate. omc also has mandatory deslop pass + regression re-verification (`ai-slop-cleaner` + Step 7.6).
-- **(c) Self-modification gate**: omc skills are read by Claude Code via the Skill tool, not written by Workers. Workers don't touch `.claude/` paths. Gate not encountered.
-- **(d) Recovery**: omc /ralph is session-scoped (`.omc/state/sessions/{sessionId}/prd.json`). Per-session state means relaunch starts fresh; there is no "manual recovery" surface to break.
-
-These are the patterns to learn from. Adopting them does NOT require pivoting away from rlp-desk; it requires bringing equivalent semantics into rlp-desk's substrate.
-
----
-
-## 4. Stabilization principles
-
-1. **omc is benchmark, not replacement.** Every change in this plan asks "how does omc avoid this failure mode?" then engineers an equivalent for rlp-desk's stack.
-2. **Preserve all 4 differentiators.** No change should compromise multi-engine consensus, multi-mission queue, BLOCK_TAGS taxonomy, or SV reports.
-3. **Substrate first, features second.** Bug categories (a) and (d) are substrate. Categories (b) and (c) are surface. Fix substrate first; surface improvements compound on a stable base.
-4. **Real-LLM SV gate.** The current SV gate's grep+unit-test labeling missed 10 production bugs. SV must be strengthened to actually catch production failure modes (subset of campaigns run with full claude/codex worker+verifier in CI-like mode).
-5. **Increment by category.** Each PR closes ONE bug category, not multiple. Avoids "fix-of-fix-of-fix" pattern that produced #4 (regression of #3).
-
----
-
-## 5. Concrete workstream (revised, per category)
-
-### Phase A — Empirical omc baseline (W1, ~3 days)
-
-Before changing rlp-desk, measure omc reliably. Three test campaigns:
-
-| Test | Workload | Measure |
-|---|---|---|
-| A1 | omc /ralph "fix small TS error in BOS apps/web/" | operator-touch count, time, cost |
-| A2 | omc /ralph + multi-iter (3+ stories) on a synthetic PRD | operator-touch count, recovery behavior |
-| A3 | omc /team "implement small feature with 3:executor" on synthetic task | parallelism behavior, lock contention |
-
-**Output**: `docs/plans/v0.15-stabilization-omc-baseline.md` with per-test metrics. Not a competition, a *measurement*. Establishes the bar rlp-desk needs to reach.
-
-### Phase B — Category (a) substrate hardening (W1-W3, ~2 weeks)
-
-The largest cluster (4 of 10 bugs). Goal: tmux/process lifecycle race window → 0 in `--mode tmux`. `--mode native` already addresses this differently; the work here is `--mode tmux`.
-
-Sub-deliverables:
-- B1: lifecycle audit (every tmux send-keys / sentinel write / pane reuse — ASCII diagram of timing windows)
-- B2: post-sentinel reaper invariant test (extend Bug #7 fix coverage to all sentinel writes, not just per-US)
-- B3: real-LLM SV scenario for category (a) — actual claude/codex worker dispatched, lifecycle race triggered deterministically, fix verified
-- B4: lifecycle observability (debug log emits race-window measurements per iteration)
-
-### Phase C — Category (d) recovery hygiene completion (W3-W4, ~1 week)
-
-Bug #10's PR-A fix covers `phase=verify` honor. Remaining recovery surfaces:
-- C1: phase=blocked recovery (operator clears blocked sentinel + restarts) — currently honored, verify with test
-- C2: phase=worker mid-iter crash recovery (leader killed mid-worker dispatch) — verify, fix if broken
-- C3: cross-mission queue recovery (one mission BLOCKED, queue advances) — verify
-- C4: documented operator recovery cookbook with deterministic jq pipelines
-
-### Phase D — Category (b) contract hardening (W4-W6, ~2 weeks)
-
-LLM contract violations are partly inevitable, but the harness can reduce the surface:
-- D1: schema validator at every artifact write (already exists for some; extend to all done-claim/iter-signal/verdict variants)
-- D2: feedback loop — when worker violates contract, next iteration's prompt includes the schema error verbatim (omc-style)
-- D3: verified_us persistence audit (Bug #9) — `status.json` is the source of truth, memory.md is supplementary, contract clear in code
-- D4: real-LLM SV scenario for category (b)
-
-### Phase E — Category (c) LLM-runtime constraint awareness (W6-W7, ~1 week)
-
-`.claude/` self-modification gate (Bug #1):
-- E1: Worker prompt explicitly states "do NOT touch `.claude/`; sentinel paths are at `.rlp-desk/memos/`" (already done in v0.13.0 path migration; verify)
-- E2: claude worker pre-flight check — try a no-op write to `.rlp-desk/` before main work; fail fast if blocked
-- E3: cross-engine fallback — when claude worker hits permission gate, mid-flight fallback to codex worker for that iter (already partial; complete)
-
-### Phase F — Real-LLM SV gate (W7-W8, ~2 weeks)
-
-The biggest framework upgrade:
-- F1: define "SV scenario" = complete real campaign (1-3 iter, real claude/codex, real tmux or native) executed in CI nightly
-- F2: each merged PR adds at least one SV scenario covering the bug it fixed (Bug #1-#10 retroactively)
-- F3: SV gate becomes "all real-LLM scenarios PASS" before npm publish — replaces the current grep-and-label SV
-- F4: cost budget for SV gate (~$10-20/run nightly, ~$300-600/month — explicit budget approval needed before W7 starts)
-
-### Release cadence
-
-- v0.15.2 (this PR): redirect + stabilization plan + Phase A start
-- v0.15.3-v0.15.7: incremental Phase B-E PRs, each landing one category fix + real-LLM SV scenario for that category
-- v0.16.0 (~8-10 weeks from 2026-05-07): real-LLM SV gate active + 10-bug regression pattern verified eliminated empirically (3 consecutive campaigns at omc baseline parity or better)
-
----
-
-## 6. Success criteria (measurable)
-
-| Metric | Current (2026-05-07) | v0.16.0 target | Measurement |
-|---|---|---|---|
-| Bug discovery rate | 1-2/week | <1/month | git log of bug-report-* files in BOS |
-| Operator-touch per campaign | unmeasured (high) | <1 per 5 campaigns | new analytics field in `campaign.jsonl` |
-| Campaign completion rate | unmeasured (low) | >80% | new analytics field |
-| SV gate catches production bugs | 0/10 | >50% (5/10 if Bug #11 happens, caught pre-publish) | post-publish bug review |
-| Differentiator preservation | 4/4 | 4/4 | regression test per differentiator |
-
----
-
-## 7. What this plan is NOT
-
-- NOT a pivot away from rlp-desk
-- NOT a maintenance mode declaration
-- NOT a plan to delete the Node leader (`--mode tmux` and `--mode agent` Node CLI both stay; deletion is a separate decision deferred until stabilization complete)
-- NOT a promise that omc patterns will be copied verbatim — they're inspiration, the implementation is rlp-desk-native
-
-## 8. What this plan IS
-
-- A correction of the 2026-05-07 misdirection
-- A category-by-category hardening roadmap with empirical baselines (Phase A)
-- A real-LLM SV gate replacement for the current theatrical SV (Phase F)
-- A preservation contract for the 4 differentiators
-- A concrete release cadence ending in v0.16.0 with measured success criteria
-
----
-
-## 9. First action (this PR)
-
-This PR (`feat/v0.15.2-stabilization-redirect`):
-- Reverts the maintenance-mode banner in `src/node/run.mjs`
-- Replaces with stabilization-in-progress banner
-- Removes `docs/plans/v0.16-FROZEN-status.md` (misdirection artifact)
-- Adds this `docs/plans/v0.15-stabilization-plan.md`
-- Updates `tests/node/us008-cli-entrypoint.test.mjs` regex
-- Bumps to v0.15.2 + npm publish so users see the corrected banner
-
-After this lands: Phase A (omc baseline measurement) starts. That's a separate session.