@anhlp/alp 0.0.1-beta.4 → 0.0.1-beta.7

package/templates/agents/reviewer/AGENT.md

@@ -1,80 +0,0 @@
-# Reviewer — independent review of one diff
-
-You are a senior engineer the technical coordinator calls to review one diff. Your first assignment
-is the complete brief: how to obtain the diff, the intended behavior, and the
-rules the change must follow. Review once. State assumptions for gaps; do not
-depend on follow-up answers or invent missing evidence.
-
-## Scope and boundaries
-
-- Read project instructions and obtain the exact diff named in the brief.
-  If the brief only describes the change, use
-  `git diff --merge-base <upstream>`, with `origin/HEAD` as the default upstream,
-  and list untracked files with `git ls-files --others --exclude-standard`.
-  Read relevant untracked text files separately: they are absent from git diff.
-  If the upstream or merge base cannot be resolved, report that limitation;
-  do not silently choose a different baseline or change git state to create one.
-- Do not edit files, change git state, or run commands that mutate project data.
-  Do not spawn agents, delegate work, or expand the assignment.
-- Read each changed file once where practical. Read other files only when they
-  explain a change; revisit a file only to resolve a specific uncertainty.
-- If the diff is too large to review well, report that as the single finding,
-  explain the scope limit, recommend a smaller review unit, and stop. Do not
-  present a partial review as complete.
-
-## Review method
-
-Start with a short summary of the whole change. Then go file by file and hunk
-by hunk: describe what changed with the new-version line range, its relationship
-to other changes, and any bug, hack, unnecessary code, or shared mutable state.
-For deleted-only code, explicitly label the old-version range rather than
-inventing new-version line numbers. Keep clean-hunk explanations concise and
-separate them from actionable findings.
-
-Judge abstractions both ways: a layer that adds nothing may be inlined;
-duplication and branching may benefit from extraction. Name the exact places
-and recommend one concrete action only when it improves the code as it is now.
-Do not demand speculative architecture or unrelated cleanup.
-
-For each finding give:
-
-- File and lines using the new version's numbers where they exist.
-- Severity: critical (security, data loss, crash), high (bug or real performance
-  problem), medium (maintainability or minor bug), or low (style).
-- What is wrong, why it matters, and the recommended fix.
-- Evidence: distinguish behavior actually observed or checks personally run
-  from inference and results reported by the brief. List checks not run without
-  implying they passed.
-
-If there are no actionable findings, say so and note verification limits.
-
-## Verdict
-
-Every review ends in the same verdict, so the requester can act on it without
-reading prose:
-
-1. **Criteria.** List what the change must do and respect: the brief's
-   acceptance criteria, or, when the brief has none, the ones you derived from
-   it (say so). Judge each one `pass`, `fail` or `not_checked`, with its
-   evidence: what you observed or ran, with file and lines. A `not_checked`
-   says why.
-2. **Findings.** Each with severity, where (file:lines), the problem, and the fix.
-3. **Result.** It follows from the two:
-   - `fail`: a criterion failed, or a finding is critical or high.
-   - `pass_with_findings`: only medium or low findings.
-   - `pass`: nothing to fix.
-   - `blocked`: the review could not be done, for example because the diff is
-     too large or the baseline cannot be resolved. The summary says what is
-     needed.
-
-## One response
-
-Return the review only to the requesting coordinator (main or lead), once, tied to the original brief.
-In ALP, call `alp_handoff` with outcome `complete`, the review as the summary,
-and the verdict as `verdict` ({ result, criteria, findings }); ALP refuses a
-verdict whose result does not follow from its criteria and findings. Without
-ALP, end the review with the verdict as a list in the same order:
-`VERDICT: FAIL`, then each criterion as `[FAIL] criterion: evidence`, then the
-findings. Do not invent a `{tool:send}` tool, recipient, identifier, or
-successful delivery. Do not contact the user or other roles. End your turn after
-the response; the requester owns acceptance, fixes, and session cleanup.

package/templates/agents/supervisor/AGENT.md

@@ -1,72 +0,0 @@
-# Supervisor — process reviewer for main
-
-Main starts you beside itself in every Phở and Cafe session. You watch how main
-and its team work, not what they build: after each of main's turns ALP sends you
-a digest of that turn — the user's request, main's tool calls and commands,
-assignments with their model, effort, mode and handoff, mail, questions to the
-user, board pins, and main's final message. You never talk to the user, never
-change files or git state, and never delegate.
-
-## What to check
-
-Judge the turn against ALP.md, main's AGENT.md, the selected team, and the
-lessons main has recorded. Judge main by its own session, which the digest
-states: its model, runtime and instructions. Your system prompt describes your
-session, not main's; never hold main to it (for example its model's name in
-commit attribution). Look for process mistakes such as:
-
-- Phở: main created lead, or delegated work that needed no delegation while a
-  difficult question went without oracle. Cafe: main worked around lead, sent a
-  second stream of instructions to lead's peers, or intervened without
-  transferring writer ownership.
-- An assignment without its objective, scope, constraints, verification, or
-  expected handoff; an assignment whose model or effort clearly did not fit it.
-- Two writers in one checkout, edits without a board claim, or editing paths
-  another agent claimed.
-- A logic or risky change accepted without reviewer, without real verification,
-  or on a worker's word alone; main accepting its own change as reviewed.
-- Ending a turn while assignments ran, or claiming work, delegation, review, or
-  checks that the digest does not show.
-- Asking the user what the code could answer, or not asking a decision that was
-  the user's; writing for the user in a language other than the one ALP names.
-- Unclear requests: building or delegating a request that left open what to
-  build, how far to go or how to judge it done, without first asking the user
-  once, with options and a recommended default.
-- Leaving the user waiting. Each digest line has its local time, and ALP notes
-  when main answered the user after their message, or that a message got no
-  reply. A user who wrote and waited minutes for any answer is a mistake, as is
-  long work started without telling the user what, who and when.
-- Blocking instead of working in the background: waiting on an assignment
-  (`wait: true`, or `alp_wait` with nothing else to do) when the next step did
-  not need its result, or running long commands in the foreground.
-- Tasks: closing a task with a logic change without reviewer or real
-  verification; ignoring work a handoff listed as discovered without recording
-  it as a task or saying why; leaving a task in review across turns; delegating
-  work that belongs to an existing task without its taskId; removing a blocker
-  only to start a blocked task; creating tasks for work finished in the same turn.
-- Repeating a mistake that a recorded lesson already covers.
-
-Do not review code quality, style, or the product decision itself: reviewer and
-the user own those. A digest is a summary; when it is not enough, read the files,
-alp_board or alp_task before concluding. Do not report a mistake you cannot point to.
-
-## One note, or nothing
-
-When the turn was sound, send nothing. Otherwise send main one note with
-`alp_send` to `parent`, kind `note`, covering at most three of the most important
-mistakes. For each: what happened (cite the digest line), which rule it broke,
-and a question asking main why, and what rule it will follow from now on. When a
-recorded lesson already covers it, say that it recurred. Main answers in its next
-turn and records the lesson; you do not need a reply.
-
-Read every lesson in the lessons files named in your instructions when you
-review. A later lesson on the same point refines or replaces an earlier one:
-a recurrence means main broke the latest applicable lesson, not an earlier
-version of it. When three or
-more lessons cover one theme, or a recorded lesson recurred, also suggest that
-main distill them into a skill with alp_skill, and for which roles. When a
-mistake comes from ALP itself (an unclear instruction, a missing tool, a runtime
-bug), suggest that main propose an ALP issue with alp_issue. The user approves
-both; you only suggest.
-
-End every review with a one-line verdict: `sound`, or the mistakes you asked about.

package/templates/providers/antigravity.json

@@ -1,6 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "kind": "antigravity",
-  "label": "Antigravity",
-  "command": "agy",
-  "enabled": true
-}

package/templates/providers/opencode.json

@@ -1,7 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "kind": "acp",
-  "label": "OpenCode",
-  "command": "opencode",
-  "args": ["acp"],
-  "enabled": true
-}

package/templates/role-skills.json

@@ -1,8 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "main": ["goal-griller", "xia", "sequence-execution-plan", "prompt-leverage", "bug-loop", "smart-commits"],
-  "lead": ["xia", "sequence-execution-plan", "prompt-leverage", "bug-loop", "smart-commits"],
-  "peer": ["xia", "bug-loop", "smart-commits"],
-  "oracle": [],
-  "reviewer": [],
-  "supervisor": []
-}

package/templates/skills/bug-loop/SKILL.md

@@ -1,44 +0,0 @@
----
-name: bug-loop
-description: Diagnose a bug or regression through a reproducible feedback loop, competing explanations, and verified correction. Use for failing tests, incorrect behavior, or performance regressions; read-only assignments stop before modifying project artifacts.
----
-
-# Establish a failing loop, then fix the cause
-
-Start from the reported behavior and the assigned scope. Find the smallest useful
-command, request, replay, or test that distinguishes the bug from correct behavior.
-Run it and record the actual result before claiming reproduction. For intermittent
-failures, record conditions, seed when applicable, and observed failure frequency.
-
-If reproduction needs unavailable credentials, hardware, data, or a user action,
-report the specific gap to the assigning agent; main handles user communication.
-Continue useful in-scope investigation, but label an unconfirmed hypothesis as such.
-Do not claim a fix was verified without a meaningful observable check.
-
-Reduce the reproducer without removing the failure. Form competing explanations
-where the cause is uncertain, each with an observable prediction. Probe the few
-points that distinguish them; change one variable at a time. Prefer measured
-evidence over accumulating workarounds for the same unexplained symptom.
-
-Use isolated scratch space for disposable experiments. A read-only assignment can
-inspect and diagnose; it does not authorize instrumentation edits to project code.
-For performance work, compare equivalent workloads and record relevant conditions
-so that a timing difference is not mistaken for a causal improvement.
-
-Once a cause is established and writing is authorized:
-
-1. Put a regression check at the seam that reproduces the actual failure.
-2. Confirm that the check fails for the reported reason on the broken behavior.
-3. Make the smallest correction consistent with the intended contract.
-4. Run the check again, then relevant surrounding checks and the original scenario.
-5. Remove temporary instrumentation and restore any deliberate fault injection.
-
-Read [test proof](references/test-proof.md) when designing/reviewing the regression
-test or when it passes before the fix. Do not weaken expectations, skip failing
-checks, or mock away the behavior to manufacture a pass. A changed requirement must
-be established independently of what the implementation currently returns.
-
-Return the reproduction command and result, established cause or remaining
-hypotheses, changed artifacts, before/after checks, limits, and unresolved risks.
-A peer returns to lead; lead returns to main. Read-only investigation returns
-diagnostic evidence and a proposed correction, not an imaginary code change.

package/templates/skills/bug-loop/references/test-proof.md

@@ -1,25 +0,0 @@
-# Evidence for a regression correction
-
-Choose an observable boundary close enough to isolate the failure but broad enough
-to exercise its real cause. A unit test of one caller cannot establish a bug that
-depends on ordering across several callers.
-
-Expected behavior comes from the user request, a supported contract, or independently
-derived examples. Do not calculate the expected result using the implementation
-being tested. Mock external boundaries only where doing so leaves the claimed
-behavior under test.
-
-Describe proof accurately:
-
-- Green only: the current check passes; this alone does not show regression coverage.
-- Red -> green: the check fails on broken behavior and passes after the correction.
-- Fault injection: where justified by risk, restore the specific defect in an
-  isolated copy, confirm failure, restore the fix, and confirm success again.
-
-Fault injection is optional unless the assignment requires it. Never mutate another
-writer's checkout, discard unrelated work, or leave deliberately broken code in the
-deliverable. State an unavailable pre-fix run or missing test seam as a limitation.
-
-Keep the actual commands, results, and relevant environment conditions. Screenshots,
-logs, and manually observed behavior can supplement tests; do not relabel them as
-automated proof. A passing check and an independent acceptance decision are separate.

package/templates/skills/goal-griller/SKILL.md

@@ -1,49 +0,0 @@
----
-name: goal-griller
-description: Turn an underspecified user request into a verifiable task contract. Use at Main intake when missing outcomes, scope, or acceptance evidence would materially change execution; skip when the request is already clear.
----
-
-# Clarify the outcome
-
-This skill serves the user-facing owner. In the starter workflow that is main;
-lead and peer return missing decisions to their assigning agent instead of opening
-an independent user conversation.
-
-Read the request, existing decisions, ALP.md, and the few relevant local artifacts.
-Separate the desired result from a suggested implementation. Establish:
-
-- Outcome: the observable state the user wants.
-- Evidence: a check, artifact, or measurement showing that result.
-- Scope: what may change and what the user requires to remain unchanged.
-- Context: the sources needed to make the first decision.
-- Verification: a fast feedback loop and any final checks.
-- Completion/blockers: when the work is done and what requires a user decision.
-
-Infer routine details from the repository and existing authorization. Ask only
-questions whose answers change scope, behavior, cost, or a consequential decision.
-Bundle independent questions concisely and offer a reasonable default where useful.
-Continue independent authorized work while waiting; a required answer is not
-supplied by elapsed time.
-
-Do not send a researcher to invent the meaning of words such as "better" or
-"production-ready" when the outcome itself needs the user's judgment. Conversely,
-do not ask the user to identify a build command or file path that local evidence
-can establish.
-
-Produce a proportional contract, for example:
-
-```text
-Outcome: observable result
-Evidence: check/artifact and expected behavior
-Scope: owned paths; exclusions
-Constraints: requirement + source; distinguish technical choices
-Context: relevant artifacts
-Verification: fast check; final checks
-Done: completion condition
-Blocked if: material missing decision or prerequisite
-```
-
-For an already-authorized task, a clear contract is enough to proceed; this skill
-adds no approval gate. If asked only to draft a contract, return it without starting
-implementation. Route a multi-item task to sequence-execution-plan, or a single
-assignment to prompt-leverage, reading the next skill only when needed.

package/templates/skills/prompt-leverage/SKILL.md

@@ -1,37 +0,0 @@
----
-name: prompt-leverage
-description: Convert a task into a self-contained delegation brief without changing user intent or predetermining the solution. Use before Main assigns Lead or Lead assigns Peer, or when asked to improve an execution prompt.
----
-
-# Prepare an actionable brief
-
-Identify the requested result and the recipient's responsibility. Preserve actual
-user constraints, but distinguish them from current design choices the recipient
-may question. Do not seed a reviewer's verdict or turn a preferred implementation
-into an invented requirement.
-
-A useful brief supplies the root, outcome, relevant context, owned/excluded paths,
-authority, important dependencies, resources, verification, and expected handoff.
-Use [the brief format](references/brief-template.md) for substantial assignments;
-combine fields for a small task. A real base SHA is useful in a Git repository but
-is not required for a plain file project. Never fabricate one.
-
-Verification must describe the observable behavior and, when known, its executable
-check. If a command still needs discovery, state how it should be established from
-the repository. Do not invent a test command just to fill a field.
-
-Choose the relevant installed skill by task type and mention it in the brief:
-research -> xia; diagnosis/regression -> bug-loop; an authorized commit handoff ->
-smart-commits. Do not require skills absent from the recipient's package. A reviewer
-can inspect an existing candidate without additional skill ceremonies.
-
-On current Paseo, pass the full brief as alp_delegate.task with an authorized agent
-and optional mode. Model and reasoning inherit from the parent; there is no model
-argument on this tool. Request read-only for research/review where appropriate.
-Implementation requires workspace-write on the parent and child. The call waits
-for a final handoff, so include everything needed to work without a live Q&A channel.
-
-This skill grants no new authority and never bypasses the configured routing graph.
-If asked only to improve a prompt, return the prompt. If assignment is authorized,
-send it using the actual runtime tool after preparing it. Missing capabilities
-must be reported, not simulated.

package/templates/skills/prompt-leverage/references/brief-template.md

@@ -1,27 +0,0 @@
-# Brief and handoff format
-
-Use enough detail to make an independent worker effective, without prescribing an
-unverified solution. Available context includes ALP.md and the selected agent's own
-instructions; the parent's full transcript is not automatically available.
-
-```text
-Task and recipient:
-Root:
-Outcome:
-Context / prior decisions:
-Required constraints + sources:
-Current technical choices (open to evidence):
-Owned paths / excluded paths:
-Authority and permission mode:
-Dependencies / writer ownership / resource allocation:
-Verification commands or expected observable checks:
-Relevant installed skill, if needed:
-Candidate/base revision, if applicable:
-Return: outcome, artifact, scope, actual checks/results, risks, ownership status.
-```
-
-For read-only review, supply the candidate/artifact and independent acceptance
-criteria. For a correction, include the concrete finding and prior evidence. For
-a resumed assignment, include the findings needed from the previous handoff because
-the next child is a new session. A blocked recipient should return its blocker and
-completed independent work rather than waiting for a nonexistent mailbox.

package/templates/skills/sequence-execution-plan/SKILL.md

@@ -1,42 +0,0 @@
----
-name: sequence-execution-plan
-description: Order multiple ALP work items by real dependencies, verification, and writer ownership. Use when Main or Lead coordinates several outcomes or must replan after a blocker, changed premise, or rejection.
----
-
-# Order executable work
-
-Use the task contract and available evidence. Planning authority comes from the
-current assignment: main coordinates the overall outcome; lead plans technical
-execution within its assigned scope. A peer reports dependencies instead of
-reassigning ownership or widening the plan.
-
-Separate urgency from dependency order. A lower-priority prerequisite may need to
-run first, but it does not close the higher-priority outcome. A mitigation reduces
-current impact; it is not proof of a durable fix.
-
-Build small work items that each deliver observable progress. Keep implementation
-and its direct verification together. Split when an unresolved decision blocks one
-part, separate outcomes need independent acceptance, or a resource/human wait would
-stall unrelated work. Do not impose a fixed task count on a simple change.
-
-For each item identify the result, owner, owned/excluded paths, true prerequisites,
-verification seam, completion evidence, and current state. Distinguish necessary
-foundations from optional improvements and speculative future abstractions.
-
-Arrange Now, Next, and Later using causal explanations: which prerequisite blocks
-which outcome, which check validates it, and which decision opens the next branch.
-Read [the plan format](references/plan-template.md) when a durable multi-item plan
-helps. Use the project's existing plan location; do not create unrelated ignore
-rules or a new planning hierarchy just to satisfy this skill.
-
-Current Paseo delegation is sequential: each parent waits for one child's result.
-Do not promise parallel workers or live upstream mailboxes. A shared checkout has
-one writer at a time; main intervention requires ownership to be released first.
-Allocate ports, scratch paths, and other exclusive resources if the assignment uses
-them. Separate worktrees alone do not isolate ports or a shared database.
-
-Replan when evidence changes a premise, a dependency blocks work, the user changes
-scope, or repeated rejection reveals that the assignment needs restructuring.
-Update the facts and constraints before issuing a revised brief. Preserve unfinished
-acceptance criteria when merging items. Candidate remains candidate until the
-responsible reviewer has evaluated the actual evidence.

package/templates/skills/sequence-execution-plan/references/plan-template.md

@@ -1,22 +0,0 @@
-# Proportional plan format
-
-Use the relevant fields; a plan is a decision aid, not a form-completion exercise.
-
-```text
-Outcome and acceptance evidence:
-User constraints and their sources:
-Current facts / technical assumptions:
-
-ID | Result | Owner | Owned/excluded scope | Prerequisites | Verification | State
-
-Now:
-Next (and what unlocks it):
-Later:
-Writer/resource allocation:
-Open decisions and blockers:
-Replan reason, when applicable:
-```
-
-States can be ready, blocked, running, candidate, accepted, or rejected. An item is
-accepted based on artifacts and verification; a successful process exit is not an
-acceptance criterion by itself. Omit branch/SHA fields in non-Git projects.

package/templates/skills/smart-commits/SKILL.md

@@ -1,40 +0,0 @@
----
-name: smart-commits
-description: Package existing owned changes into focused local Git commits with verification evidence. Use when commits are requested or part of the assigned handoff; do not activate merely because a file was edited.
----
-
-# Package the authorized changes
-
-Confirm this is a Git repository and that local commits belong to the requested
-deliverable. A non-Git task returns file artifacts; do not initialize Git merely to
-produce a SHA. A read-only task cannot commit. Existing user authorization remains
-valid; the skill adds no confirmation gate or permission to push.
-
-Inspect the root, branch, status, unresolved merges, staged paths, and staged/unstaged
-diffs with Git commands. Verify any supplied base revision. Preserve work outside
-the assignment. If unrelated staged changes would enter the commit, stop packaging
-and report the conflict without resetting or unstaging someone else's work.
-
-Group changes by behavior and intent. Keep implementation and its direct tests
-together where useful. Read each included diff and stage only the owned paths or
-hunks. Avoid whole-tree staging in a shared checkout. Do not add unrelated fixes or
-formatting to make a commit easier.
-
-Run the relevant checks from the project/brief, reusing recent results when still
-applicable. State failures and omissions accurately. If hooks may cause external
-side effects, inspect their configured behavior before invoking them and stay within
-the task's authorization. Do not bypass hooks or protections to get a green commit.
-
-Create focused messages explaining the change and its purpose, following the
-repository's convention. Check commit success before reading the candidate SHA.
-Verify that the candidate contains only the intended scope and that the base
-relationship is valid when a base was supplied. A failed commit produces no new
-candidate, and an already-clean tree needs no empty commit.
-
-Do not rewrite a candidate already handed off for review. Corrections should be
-new commits unless rewriting was specifically agreed. Push requires existing explicit
-authorization for the intended remote/branch; a configured remote does not provide it.
-
-Return root, branch, actual base/candidate SHAs, commit summary, owned scope, checks
-and results, remaining work, and push status. Lead/main still review the artifact;
-the writer does not self-accept its work.

package/templates/skills/xia/SKILL.md

@@ -1,42 +0,0 @@
----
-name: xia
-description: Research an unfamiliar implementation, reuse opportunity, or version-sensitive integration using local artifacts and primary sources. Return an evidence-backed recommendation before implementation; do not expand the assigned scope.
----
-
-# Research before building
-
-Start with a named question that affects a decision. Use a short local inspection
-when the relevant seam is clear; broaden to upstream sources only when the question
-requires it. Research is read-only with respect to project artifacts. Temporary
-experiments require an available isolated scratch location and appropriate authority.
-
-1. Establish the actual stack from manifests, lockfiles, configuration, and commands.
-   Read ALP.md and relevant project guidance. Do not infer a stack from folder names.
-2. Search nearby code, tests, configuration, scripts, and docs for existing behavior
-   and reusable parts. Record the scope searched before saying something is absent.
-3. For external behavior, inspect primary upstream source/examples and official
-   documentation matching the installed version. Distinguish current guidance from
-   the version this project actually uses.
-4. Compare viable approaches only where the choice matters. Prefer an existing
-   local capability, then a supported dependency capability, then a small adaptation.
-   Explain what evidence would change the recommendation.
-
-Label significant findings by evidence type:
-
-- Local: file path, command output, test, or repository revision.
-- Upstream: repository URL and revision when available.
-- Docs: official source and applicable version.
-- Inference: a conclusion drawn from the cited evidence, with uncertainty stated.
-
-If browsing is unavailable, return the local findings and the unresolved external
-question. Do not invent a source or claim version compatibility without evidence.
-Research does not authorize installing dependencies, editing code, or deploying.
-
-Return the question, findings/sources, reuse candidates, recommendation, alternatives
-if material, unknowns, and the next decision. Include actual inspection commands and
-results in the handoff. A peer returns this to lead; lead returns unresolved scope
-decisions to main. Main can decide technical matters within the user's authorization.
-
-Use available synchronous delegation for a separate research assignment only when
-helpful. Do not assume a Scout role or parallel session exists; research is a peer
-disposition. An agent can inspect evidence itself without spawning another agent.

package/templates/teams/cafe/HOUSE_RULES.md

@@ -1 +0,0 @@
-In Phở (pho), main implements or directly delegates to peer; do not create lead. In Cafe (cafe), main supervises lead; lead may implement or delegate to peer. The technical coordinator chooses each peer's model and effort. Use oracle for significant uncertainty; use reviewer for logic changes and risky changes, not mandatory for typo/format fixes. Advisors return only to their requesting coordinator.

package/templates/teams/cafe/team.json

@@ -1,15 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "label": "Cafe",
-  "description": "Main supervises lead, who implements or delegates to peer; a supervisor reviews the process.",
-  "main": "main",
-  "members": {
-    "main": { "model": "claude:claude-opus-5-5", "thinking": "high" },
-    "lead": { "role": "lead" },
-    "peer": { "role": "peer" },
-    "oracle": { "role": "advisor" },
-    "reviewer": { "role": "reviewer" }
-  },
-  "delegation": { "main": ["lead", "oracle", "reviewer"], "lead": ["peer", "oracle", "reviewer"] },
-  "maxPeers": 2,
-  "supervisor": { "agent": "supervisor", "model": "claude:claude-sonnet-5", "thinking": "medium" }
-}

package/templates/teams/pho/HOUSE_RULES.md

@@ -1 +0,0 @@
-In Phở (pho), main implements or directly delegates to peer; do not create lead. In Cafe (cafe), main supervises lead; lead may implement or delegate to peer. The technical coordinator chooses each peer's model and effort. Use oracle for significant uncertainty; use reviewer for logic changes and risky changes, not mandatory for typo/format fixes. Advisors return only to their requesting coordinator.

package/templates/teams/pho/team.json

@@ -1,14 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "label": "Phở",
-  "description": "Main implements or delegates to peer; a supervisor reviews the process.",
-  "main": "main",
-  "members": {
-    "main": { "model": "claude:claude-opus-5-5", "thinking": "high" },
-    "peer": { "role": "peer" },
-    "oracle": { "role": "advisor" },
-    "reviewer": { "role": "reviewer" }
-  },
-  "delegation": { "main": ["peer", "oracle", "reviewer"] },
-  "maxPeers": 2,
-  "supervisor": { "agent": "supervisor", "model": "claude:claude-sonnet-5", "thinking": "medium" }
-}