@chllming/wave-orchestration 0.5.3 → 0.5.4

package/docs/roadmap.md

@@ -1,626 +1,222 @@
 # Wave Orchestrator Roadmap
 
-This roadmap records the highest-value upgrades for Wave Orchestration while preserving the current architecture:
+Wave Orchestrator should keep wave markdown as the authored plan surface, but it needs a higher planning-fidelity bar and a better authoring loop.
 
-- lane-scoped runs
-- wave markdown as the authored plan surface
-- multi-role agents with explicit ownership
-- component promotions, exit contracts, documentation stewardship, and evaluator closure
+The same planning and execution substrate should also support ad-hoc operator requests without forcing every one-off task into the long-lived numbered roadmap sequence.
 
-The goal is not to replace waves with a different orchestration model. The goal is to make the existing wave model more durable for long-running, multi-agent, multi-lane repository work.
+The target is the level of specificity shown in [Wave 7](/home/coder/slowfast.ai/docs/plans/waves/wave-7.md): explicit sequencing, hard requirements, exact validation commands, earlier-wave inputs, concrete ownership, and clear closure rules. This roadmap focuses on how to get this repo there without replacing the current architecture.
 
-## Current Status
+## Current Position
 
-As of the current repository state:
+The repository already has the right runtime substrate:
 
-- the package-first install and upgrade flow is shipped
-- the canonical coordination JSONL store, rendered board projection, compiled inboxes, per-wave ledger, docs queue, integration summaries, and trace bundles are shipped
-- `A8` integration stewardship and staged closure are shipped
-- orchestrator-first clarification triage and human-escalation artifacts are shipped
-- per-agent executor profiles, per-lane runtime policy, hard runtime mix targets, retry-time fallback, and generic budgets are shipped
-- required inbound cross-lane dependency tickets now block both autonomous wave launch and lane finalization
-- integration summaries now carry actionable evidence for claims, interface drift, proof gaps, docs gaps, and deploy or ops risk
-- cumulative `quality.json` metrics and internal, read-only hermetic trace replay validation are shipped
-- capability-targeted requests now become explicit helper assignments with deterministic assignee selection, ledger/traces coverage, and closure barriers
-- typed cross-lane dependency workflows now have operator commands, per-wave dependency snapshots, and replay-visible gating
-
-The remaining roadmap work is mostly about extending those foundations rather than inventing a new orchestration model.
-
-## Design Position
-
-The recent harness and blackboard sources point in the same direction:
-
-- compaction alone is not enough for long-running work
-- append-only communication logs are useful, but not sufficient as the canonical coordination substrate
-- messaging quality matters less than whether the system can integrate distributed findings into a coherent decision
-- runtime choice should be treated as authored plan data, not only as a launch-time default
-- clarification should stay inside the harness loop until the orchestrator can prove that human input is actually required
-- the harness needs reproducible traces, explicit loop control, and durable state across sessions
-
-Wave Orchestration already has a strong base:
-
-- wave parsing and role imports
 - lane-scoped state under `.tmp/`
-- canonical coordination JSONL plus generated message boards
-- compiled shared summaries and per-agent inboxes
-- per-agent executor overrides, profiles, per-lane runtime policy, and retry fallback for Codex, Claude, and OpenCode
-- structured proof and documentation markers
-- integration, documentation, and evaluator closure sweep
-- a file-backed human feedback queue plus orchestrator-first clarification triage
-- ledger, docs queue, and trace bundles
-
-The next step is to evolve the harness from “agents write progress notes” into “agents coordinate through typed shared state, compiled inboxes, runtime-aware planning, and an explicit integration phase.”
-
-## What To Keep
-
-These parts of the current model should stay:
-
-- Wave markdown remains the authored planning surface.
-- Lanes remain the top-level isolation unit for separate workstreams.
-- Agent IDs and role prompts remain the basic execution model.
-- The per-agent `### Executor` section remains the planning surface for runtime choice; it just becomes richer and more enforceable.
-- Exit contracts, component promotions, documentation stewardship, and evaluator closure remain the primary completion controls.
-- The markdown message board remains as a human-readable audit view.
-
-## Highest-Value Addons
-
-### 1. Canonical Coordination Store
-
-Add a lane- and wave-scoped structured coordination store and treat the markdown message board as a rendered view.
-
-Why this is highest value:
-
-- The current board format in `scripts/wave-orchestrator/coordination.mjs` is easy to read but weak as machine state.
-- The parser depends on regexes and free-text fields.
-- Blackboard-style coordination works best when requests, claims, evidence, blockers, and decisions are explicit typed objects.
-
-Proposed artifact:
-
-- `.tmp/<lane>-wave-launcher/coordination/wave-<n>.jsonl`
-
-Proposed record kinds:
-
-- `request`
-- `ack`
-- `claim`
-- `evidence`
-- `decision`
-- `blocker`
-- `handoff`
-- `human-feedback`
-- `integration-summary`
-
-Required fields:
-
-- `id`
-- `kind`
-- `wave`
-- `lane`
-- `agentId`
-- `targets`
-- `status`
-- `priority`
-- `artifactRefs`
-- `dependsOn`
-- `closureCondition`
-- `createdAt`
-- `updatedAt`
-- `confidence`
-- `summary`
-- `detail`
-
-Compatibility rule:
-
-- keep writing the markdown board, but generate it from the coordination store and append a short human-readable projection
-
-### 2. Agent Inbox Compiler
-
-Stop injecting a raw board tail into every agent prompt. Compile role-specific inboxes from the canonical coordination state.
-
-Why this is high value:
-
-- Long-running harness guidance favors explicit handoff artifacts and short “get up to speed” paths.
-- Raw tail snapshots are noisy and lose important old-but-still-open obligations.
-- Multi-agent blackboard systems work when the current blackboard state determines who should act next and what they should see.
-
-Proposed artifacts:
-
-- `.tmp/<lane>-wave-launcher/inboxes/wave-<n>/<agent-id>.md`
-- `.tmp/<lane>-wave-launcher/inboxes/wave-<n>/shared-summary.md`
-
-Each inbox should contain:
-
-- owned open requests
-- claims that conflict with this agent’s work
-- unresolved blockers affecting owned files or components
-- required doc deltas
-- human feedback relevant to that agent
-- integration findings from prior attempts
-- only the minimal recent audit context needed for recovery
-
-Prompt change:
+- wave parsing and validation
+- role-based execution with evaluator, integration, and documentation stewards
+- executor profiles and lane runtime policy
+- compiled inboxes, ledgers, docs queues, dependency snapshots, and trace bundles
+- orchestrator-first clarification handling and human feedback workflows
+
+The biggest remaining gap is not runtime execution. It is authored planning quality, the tooling around planning, and a lower-friction entry point for ad-hoc work that still preserves the same coordination and trace surfaces.
+
+## Planning Fidelity Target
+
+Every serious wave should be able to answer these questions before launch:
+
+- What earlier waves or artifacts are prerequisites?
+- What exact components are being promoted and why now?
+- What is the required runtime mix and fallback policy?
+- Which deploy environment or infra substrate is in scope?
+- Is the run `oversight` or `dark-factory`?
+- What exact validation commands must pass?
+- What exact artifact closes the role?
+
+Generated waves and transient ad-hoc runs should default to these sections when relevant:
+
+- sequencing note
+- reference rule or source-of-truth note
+- project bootstrap context
+- deploy environments
+- component promotions
+- Context7 defaults
+- per-agent required context
+- earlier-wave outputs to read
+- requirements
+- validation
+- output or closure contract
+
+## Phase 1: Planner Foundation
+
+Status: shipped in `0.5.4`.
+
+- Add saved project bootstrap memory in `.wave/project-profile.json`.
+- Ask once whether the repo is a new project and keep that answer for future drafts.
+- Add `wave project setup` and `wave project show`.
+- Add interactive `wave draft` that writes:
+  - `docs/plans/waves/specs/wave-<n>.json`
+  - `docs/plans/waves/wave-<n>.md`
+- Treat the JSON draft spec as the canonical authoring artifact and render markdown from it.
+- Keep generated waves fully compatible with the current parser and launcher.
+- Add `wave launch --terminal-surface vscode|tmux|none`.
+- Support a tmux-only operator mode that never touches `.vscode/terminals.json`.
 
-- `buildExecutionPrompt` should inject the compiled inbox plus the shared wave summary, not the last N characters of the board
-
-### 3. Explicit Integration Phase Before Final Closure
-
-Add a dedicated integration phase between implementation completion and documentation/evaluator closure.
-
-Why this is essential:
+Why first:
 
-- Silo-Bench shows a communication-reasoning gap: agents can exchange enough information and still fail to integrate it.
-- DOVA’s strongest pattern is ensemble breadth, blackboard transparency, then iterative refinement.
-- The current closure sweep checks implementation, docs, evaluator, and infra, but does not assign integration as a first-class role.
+- Better planning is the highest-leverage missing piece.
+- The repo already has strong runtime and closure machinery.
+- Project memory removes repeated setup questions and gives future planner steps a durable baseline.
 
-Proposed model:
+## Phase 2: Ad-Hoc Task Runs
 
-- reserve a configurable integration steward, default `A8`
-- the integration steward does not own feature implementation
-- it owns synthesis, conflict detection, integration risk, and open dependency reconciliation
+The orchestrator should support operator-driven one-off requests without requiring the user to author or commit a numbered roadmap wave first.
 
-Integration outputs:
+CLI target:
 
-- `.tmp/<lane>-wave-launcher/integration/wave-<n>.json`
-- `.tmp/<lane>-wave-launcher/integration/wave-<n>.md`
+- `wave adhoc plan --task "..."`
+- `wave adhoc run --task "..." [--task "..."]`
+- `wave adhoc list`
+- `wave adhoc show --run <id>`
 
-Required fields:
+Behavior:
 
-- open claims
-- conflicting claims
-- unresolved blockers
-- changed interfaces
-- cross-component impacts
-- proof gaps
-- doc gaps
-- release/deploy risks
-- final recommendation: `ready-for-doc-closure` or `needs-more-work`
+- accept one or more free-form task requests
+- normalize them into a single transient plan or spec
+- synthesize the worker roles needed for the request while still preserving evaluator, integration, and documentation closure when relevant
+- run that transient plan through the existing launcher, coordination, inbox, ledger, docs queue, integration, and trace machinery
+- keep ad-hoc runs logged, inspectable, and replayable with the same basic operator surfaces as roadmap waves
 
-Gate rule:
+Storage model:
 
-- the documentation steward and evaluator do not run their final pass until the integration steward emits a final integration summary
+- do not write ad-hoc runs into the canonical numbered wave sequence under `docs/plans/waves/`
+- store the original request, generated spec, rendered markdown, and final result under `.wave/adhoc/runs/<run-id>/`
+- keep runtime state isolated under `.tmp/<lane>-wave-launcher/adhoc/<run-id>/`
+- extend trace metadata with `runKind: adhoc` and `runId`
 
-### 4. Durable Wave Task Ledger
+Design constraints:
 
-Add a machine-readable wave ledger separate from the coordination log.
+- reuse the planner and launcher instead of building a second runtime
+- treat ad-hoc as a transient single-run execution unit, not a fake roadmap wave
+- do not let ad-hoc completion mutate normal `completedWaves` lane state
+- give `wave coord`, `wave feedback`, and future replay or reporting flows a way to target `--run <id>`
 
 Why this matters:
 
-- Anthropic’s initializer/progress/feature-list pattern and OpenAI’s repository-as-system-of-record point to the same need: durable task state
-- a coordination stream is not the same thing as a canonical ledger of what is left
+- many real operator requests are one-off bugfix, investigation, doc, infra, or release tasks
+- the framework's coordination, closure, and traceability should apply to ad-hoc work too
+- isolated ad-hoc runs preserve auditability without polluting the long-lived roadmap
 
-Proposed artifact:
+## Phase 3: Forward Replanning
 
-- `.tmp/<lane>-wave-launcher/ledger/wave-<n>.json`
+Add `wave update --from-wave <n>`.
 
-Track:
+Rules:
 
-- tasks and subgoals derived from the wave
-- owner agent
-- current state
-- proof status
-- docs status
-- infra/deploy status
-- dependent tasks
-- baseline verification status
+- closed waves are immutable
+- the current open wave and later waves may be regenerated
+- replanning must record what changed and why
+- new repo state, new user intent, and refreshed research may all trigger a replan
 
-Use:
+Outputs:
 
-- the autonomous runner should use the ledger, not only run-state, to decide whether to continue, relaunch a role, or stop
-
-### 5. Communication-Aware Scheduling
-
-Use coordination state to drive execution decisions.
+- updated draft JSON specs
+- regenerated markdown waves
+- a short replan summary for operator review
 
 Why this matters:
 
-- the current dashboard renders communication health, but the launcher and autonomous runner do not meaningfully act on it
-- blackboard systems are strongest when blackboard state affects who runs next
-
-Additions:
-
-- if an agent has unacknowledged targeted requests, prioritize or relaunch that agent
-- if a high-priority blocker remains unresolved, prevent wave completion
-- if integration detects unresolved cross-agent contradictions, force a focused follow-up round
-- if only documentation deltas remain, relaunch only the documentation steward
-- if only deployment or infra proof remains, relaunch only the relevant infra/deploy role
-
-### 6. Mixed-Runtime Planning And Runtime Profiles
-
-Treat executor choice as authored plan data at wave design time, not only as a launcher default.
-
-Why this is useful:
-
-- The current harness already supports per-agent executor selection, but the planning surface is too narrow for real mixed-runtime lane design.
-- Different roles benefit from different runtimes: implementation, evaluation, documentation, integration, and infra/deploy do not need identical execution substrates.
-- The OpenAI App Server pattern and OPENDEV's provider-conditional harness design both point toward a stable harness loop with swappable underlying runtimes.
-
-Wave file change:
-
-- strengthen `### Executor` from optional override into a first-class planning section for roles that need non-default runtime behavior
-- allow runtime profiles plus inline overrides
-
-Recommended keys:
-
-- `id`
-- `profile`
-- `model`
-- `fallbacks`
-- `tags`
-- `budget.turns`
-- `budget.minutes`
-- `codex.command`
-- `codex.sandbox`
-- `claude.command`
-- `claude.agent`
-- `claude.permission_mode`
-- `claude.permission_prompt_tool`
-- `claude.max_turns`
-- `claude.mcp_config`
-- `claude.settings`
-- `claude.output_format`
-- `claude.allowed_tools`
-- `claude.disallowed_tools`
-- `opencode.command`
-- `opencode.agent`
-- `opencode.attach`
-- `opencode.format`
-- `opencode.steps`
-- `opencode.instructions`
-- `opencode.permission`
-
-Lane config additions:
-
-- `executors.profiles.<profile-name>`
-- `lanes.<lane>.runtimeMixTargets`
-- `lanes.<lane>.defaultExecutorByRole`
-- `lanes.<lane>.fallbackExecutorOrder`
-
-Example runtime mix target:
-
-- `codex: 3`
-- `claude: 3`
-- `opencode: 2`
-
-Use:
-
-- planners assign runtime and runtime profile inside the wave, not only at launch time
-- launcher validation accepts only supported runtime fields and rejects silent drift
-- the orchestrator can reassign an agent only when the fallback policy allows it
-- dashboards, ledgers, and traces report runtime by agent, by role, and by fallback path
-
-### 7. Capability-Based Volunteer Roles
-
-Extend fixed roles with optional capability-based volunteering.
-
-Why this is useful:
-
-- the blackboard papers show that rigid controller knowledge does not scale well
-- the current wave format already supports multiple roles; capability tags make routing smarter without removing explicit ownership
-
-Wave file addition:
-
-- optional `### Capabilities`
-
-Examples:
-
-- `integration`
-- `docs-shared-plan`
-- `infra-k8s`
-- `deploy-railway`
-- `schema-migration`
-- `frontend-validation`
-
-Use:
-
-- requests can target a named agent or a capability class
-- the launcher can assign the next step to the least-busy matching agent or a configured preferred role
+- multi-wave plans drift as code lands
+- research and infra assumptions change
+- forward-only replanning preserves auditability without pretending older waves never existed
 
-### 8. Orchestrator-First Clarification And Feedback Triage
+## Phase 4: Infra and Deploy-Aware Planning
 
-Put the orchestrator, not the human, on the first line for unresolved questions.
+Infra and deploy roles need typed environment context, not free-form prompt notes only.
 
-Why:
+Project profile should support typed deploy providers with a `custom` escape hatch:
 
-- the current feedback queue is useful but separate from the main shared workspace
-- autonomous mode currently treats pending feedback as a blocking condition rather than as a triage problem the harness should try to solve
-- many requests can be resolved from repository guidance, ownership rules, prior wave decisions, or current coordination state without asking a human
+- `railway-mcp`
+- `railway-cli`
+- `docker-compose`
+- `kubernetes`
+- `ssh-manual`
+- `custom`
 
-Clarification ladder:
+Planner-generated infra or deploy roles should know:
 
-1. the agent checks its inbox, ledger, coordination store, owned files, and repo guidance
-2. if still blocked, it emits a typed `clarification-request`
-3. the orchestrator triages the request and either:
-   - answers directly with `orchestrator-guidance`
-   - routes it to another agent as a targeted request
-   - resolves it from existing policy or prior decisions
-   - escalates to a human when external intent is truly missing
-4. only unresolved product, policy, safety, or externally-owned decisions become human tickets
+- which environment they own
+- which substrate is authoritative
+- what credentials or executors are expected
+- what validation commands prove readiness
+- what rollback or recovery guidance applies
 
-Proposed record kinds:
+This is especially important for `dark-factory` mode. Fully autonomous infra work should require stronger environment modeling than human-overseen work.
 
-- `clarification-request`
-- `orchestrator-guidance`
-- `resolved-by-policy`
-- `human-escalation`
-- `human-feedback`
+## Phase 5: Oversight and Dark-Factory Modes
 
-Proposed artifacts:
+Execution posture must be explicit plan data.
 
-- `.tmp/<lane>-wave-launcher/feedback/triage/wave-<n>.jsonl`
-- `.tmp/<lane>-wave-launcher/feedback/triage/wave-<n>/pending-human.md`
+Default:
 
-Escalation policy:
+- `oversight`
 
-- escalate only for missing business intent, conflicting top-level instructions, security or compliance ambiguity, external-system risk, or repeated failed orchestrator resolution attempts
-- autonomous mode should drain orchestrator-resolvable clarification items before refusing to continue
-- answered human feedback should be written back into the coordination store and wave ledger so the same question is not asked twice
+Opt-in:
 
-### 9. Reproducible Harness Traces
+- `dark-factory`
 
-The base trace-and-replay layer is now shipped. The remaining work is operator-facing replay tooling and larger continuous-history scenario sets.
+`oversight` means:
 
-Why this is mandatory:
+- human checkpoints remain normal for live mutation, deploy, release, or risky infra work
+- the planner should generate explicit review gates
 
-- VeRO and EvoClaw both argue that long-running agent systems need reproducible traces and continuous-history evaluation
-- without this, harness changes are anecdotal
+`dark-factory` means:
 
-Current per-attempt trace bundle:
+- the wave is intended to run end-to-end without routine human approvals
+- deploy environment, validation, rollback, and closure signals must be stricter
+- missing environment context is a planning error, not a runtime surprise
 
-- wave file hash
-- prompt fingerprints
-- compiled inboxes
-- coordination store snapshot
-- structured markers from logs
-- exit contract outcomes
-- integration summary
-- evaluator verdict
-- docs closure state
-- runtime budgets and retries
-- cumulative quality metrics
-- gate snapshot and artifact-presence metadata
-- replay context and cumulative history snapshot for hermetic replay
+## Phase 6: Coordination and Integration Upgrades
 
-Artifact:
+The runtime already has strong coordination primitives, but the roadmap should still push these areas:
 
-- `.tmp/<lane>-wave-launcher/traces/wave-<n>/attempt-<k>/`
+- keep the canonical coordination store as the source of truth and the markdown board as a rendered view
+- keep compiled per-agent inboxes and shared summaries central to prompt construction
+- strengthen the integration steward output as the single closure-ready synthesis artifact
+- add `wave lint` for ownership, component promotion, runtime mix, deploy environment, and closure completeness
+- expand replay scenarios for replanning, autonomy modes, and infra-heavy waves
 
-Current contract:
+## Additional Features Worth Scheduling
 
-- dry-run remains pre-attempt only and should not create `attempt-<k>` snapshots
-- `traceVersion: 2` bundles are hermetic and replayable in isolation
-- replay is read-only and revalidates recorded artifact hashes
-- launched agents carry copied summary artifacts, and promoted-component waves carry the copied component matrix JSON
-- legacy `traceVersion: 1` bundles remain best-effort with explicit warnings
-- replay validation is internal today, not a public CLI
+- template packs for common wave shapes: implementation, QA, infra, release, migration
+- doc-delta extraction plus changelog or release-note queues when waves change public behavior
+- executor and credential preflight checks before launch
+- project-profile-aware defaults for lane, template, terminal surface, and oversight mode
+- richer branch and PR guidance in draft specs when the wave is release or deploy oriented
+- benchmark scenarios that compare oversight vs dark-factory outcomes
 
-## Upgraded Architecture
+## Research Notes
 
-### Current Model
+The direction above is consistent with the local source set and the current external references:
 
-Current flow, simplified:
-
-1. Parse wave file.
-2. Launch one session per agent.
-3. Ask all agents to coordinate on a markdown board.
-4. Parse logs and structured markers.
-5. Run documentation closure and evaluator closure.
-
-This is workable, but it leaves five gaps:
-
-- communication is mostly free-text
-- integration is implicit
-- runtime planning is still too lane-default and not expressive enough for deliberate mixed-runtime teams
-- clarification escalates too early to a human queue
-- scheduling is not strongly driven by shared state
-
-### Proposed Model
-
-Upgraded flow, still wave- and lane-native:
-
-1. Parse the wave file into the manifest, runtime plan, and wave ledger.
-2. Resolve executor profiles, fallback policy, and runtime-mix targets for the lane.
-3. Build or update the canonical coordination store.
-4. Compile the shared summary and per-agent inboxes.
-5. Launch implementation, infra, deploy, docs, research, or evaluation roles based on the ledger, runtime plan, and open requests.
-6. Let the orchestrator triage clarification requests and resolve or route them before escalating to a human.
-7. Continuously ingest structured outputs into the coordination store and ledger.
-8. Run a dedicated integration phase to synthesize all claims and remaining gaps.
-9. Run documentation closure using the integration summary.
-10. Run evaluator closure using the integration summary plus final doc state.
-11. Persist the attempt trace bundle for replay and evaluation.
-
-## Recommended Role Model
-
-This role model works with the current multi-role architecture and extends it rather than replacing it:
-
-- `A0` evaluator
-- `A8` integration steward
-- `A9` documentation steward
-- implementation roles, each owning explicit files and components
-- optional infra role for identity, admission, machine conformance, or deployment substrates
-- optional deploy verifier role for rollout, health, and operational proof
-
-Responsibilities:
-
-- implementation roles produce code, proofs, and doc deltas
-- infra/deploy roles produce structured environment proof
-- integration steward synthesizes cross-role state
-- documentation steward reconciles shared docs and component matrix
-- evaluator decides whether the wave is coherent enough to pass
-
-## Runtime Planning And Lane Mix
-
-Wave orchestration should support a deliberate runtime mix inside one lane. A lane can run `3 codex`, `2 claude`, and `2 opencode` agents as long as the wave declares which agent prefers which runtime and what fallbacks are allowed.
-
-Recommended starting mapping for this repo:
-
-- implementation and test-fix roles: `codex`
-- integration steward, evaluator, and documentation steward: `claude`
-- exploratory helper, research, and CLI-heavy ops roles: `opencode`
-- infra and deploy roles: choose `codex` or `opencode` based on the command workflow and tooling needs, not by habit
-
-Planning rules:
-
-- every agent in a deliberate mixed-runtime wave should declare `### Executor`
-- runtime reassignment during execution must preserve ownership and leave an audit record
-- runtime profiles should capture the common presets such as `implement-fast`, `deep-review`, `docs-pass`, and `ops-triage`
-- integration summaries should report the final runtime used by each agent and whether any fallback fired
-
-This keeps runtime choice visible in the authored plan instead of hiding it inside CLI defaults.
-
-## Lanes And Cross-Lane Coordination
-
-Lanes should remain isolated in execution state but gain typed cross-lane dependency tickets.
-
-Current strength:
-
-- lane-scoped paths already exist
-- an orchestrator board already exists
-
-Upgrade:
-
-- add `.tmp/wave-orchestrator/dependencies/<lane>.jsonl`
-- each cross-lane dependency is a typed ticket with owner lane, requester lane, closure condition, and related waves
-- lane autonomous mode should refuse to finalize if it has unresolved required inbound dependencies
-
-This keeps lane isolation while making cross-lane work explicit and schedulable.
-
-## Documentation Upgrades
-
-The current documentation steward role is good, but it is overloaded.
-
-Improve it by adding:
-
-- doc delta extraction from implementation markers into a machine-readable queue
-- explicit shared-plan reconciliation checklist
-- component-matrix reconciliation checklist
-- release-notes or changelog queue when a wave changes public package behavior
-- a per-wave runtime assignment summary so doc and eval roles can see which runtime owned which artifacts
-
-Documentation should consume integration outputs, not rediscover them from raw logs.
-
-## Evaluation Upgrades
-
-The harness should move from “wave passed or failed” to “wave quality is replayable and comparable.”
-
-Add:
-
-- per-wave regression datasets
-- replayable trace bundles
-- scoring for communication health, integration quality, and proof quality
-- continuous-history benchmark scenarios, not only single-wave success
-- runtime-mix reporting so success can be segmented by executor and by role
-- clarification reporting so orchestrator-resolved questions and human escalations are both measurable
-
-Suggested metrics:
-
-- unresolved request count at closure
-- integration contradiction count
-- documentation drift count
-- proof completeness ratio
-- relaunch count by role
-- relaunch count by executor
-- runtime fallback rate
-- mean time to first acknowledgement
-- mean time to blocker resolution
-- orchestrator clarification resolution rate
-- human escalation rate
-- evaluator reversal rate between early and final verdicts
-
-## Infra And DevOps Upgrades
-
-The harness already has structured deploy and infra markers. The next step is to make them durable and wave-aware.
-
-Add:
-
-- infra proof records into the coordination store and ledger
-- deploy readiness and deploy verification as separate states
-- environment baseline checks at wave start
-- executor binary, credential, and profile availability checks for every runtime referenced by the wave
-- required rollback or recovery guidance for waves that touch live systems
-
-For infra- or deploy-heavy lanes, the integration steward should treat infra proof as first-class, not as a side detail in implementation logs.
-
-## Prioritized Delivery Order
-
-### Phase 1: Coordination And Planning Foundation
-
-- canonical coordination store
-- markdown board as rendered view
-- per-agent inbox compiler
-- full per-agent `### Executor` schema with runtime profiles
-- typed clarification and human-feedback events
-
-Why first:
-
-- every other improvement depends on better shared state, a durable runtime plan, and a typed clarification model
-
-### Phase 2: Integration And Scheduling
-
-- integration steward role
-- integration summary artifacts
-- communication-aware relaunch and closure rules
-- orchestrator-first clarification resolver
-- wave ledger
-
-Why second:
-
-- this closes the communication-reasoning gap and the too-early human escalation loop without changing the authored wave format
-
-### Phase 3: Evaluation And Replay
-
-- shipped:
-  - trace bundles
-  - cumulative wave quality metrics
-  - runtime-mix and clarification metrics
-  - internal replay validation against stored attempt bundles
-  - launcher-generated replay acceptance coverage for hermetic pass, clarification, blocking, and retry/fallback traces
-- still open:
-  - larger continuous-history replay scenario sets across more than one wave
-  - a public replay CLI if the internal helper proves stable
-
-Why third:
-
-- once state and flow are structured, evaluation becomes meaningful
-
-### Phase 4: Capability Routing And Cross-Lane Dependencies
-
-- shipped:
-  - capability tags
-  - deterministic helper-assignment routing from open requests
-  - helper-assignment snapshots under `.tmp/<lane>-wave-launcher/assignments/`
-  - typed `wave dep post|show|resolve|render` operator workflows
-  - per-wave inbound/outbound dependency snapshots under `.tmp/<lane>-wave-launcher/dependencies/`
-  - dependency-aware gating, inboxes, dashboards, and trace/replay artifacts
-- still open:
-  - larger multi-lane benchmark scenarios that stress dependency resolution across more than one wave
-  - richer dependency-specific operator dashboards if the current JSON and markdown projections prove insufficient
-
-Why fourth:
-
-- this only became high leverage once the coordination, integration, and replay layers were already trustworthy
+- OpenAI, “Harness engineering: leveraging Codex in an agent-first world”
+  - repository-local plans and environment design matter more than prompt-only control
+- Anthropic, “Effective harnesses for long-running agents”
+  - first-run initialization and durable progress artifacts are critical
+- DOVA
+  - deliberation-first orchestration and transparent intermediate state support better refinement loops
+- Silo-Bench
+  - communication alone is not enough; integration quality is the real bottleneck
+- Evaluating AGENTS.md
+  - repository-level context files help, but they should complement executable and versioned planning artifacts rather than replace them
 
 ## Immediate Recommendation
 
-The highest-value near-term upgrade is:
-
-1. canonical coordination store
-2. compiled agent inboxes
-3. explicit integration steward and integration summary
-4. full planning-time runtime profiles in `### Executor`
-5. orchestrator-first clarification triage
-
-That combination gives the harness the biggest improvement in:
-
-- long-running robustness
-- intra-agent messaging quality
-- mixed-runtime planning quality
-- reduced unnecessary human interruption
-- closure reliability
-- lane and multi-role scalability
-
-without forcing a rewrite of wave files, lane structure, or existing proof markers.
+The next shipping sequence should be:
 
-## Source References
+1. planner foundation
+2. ad-hoc task runs on the same substrate
+3. forward replanning
+4. typed infra and deploy planning
+5. explicit oversight vs dark-factory workflows
+6. stronger linting, replay, and benchmark coverage
 
-The canonical source list now lives at the bottom of [README.md](../../README.md). Keep the committed source manifest in [docs/research/agent-context-sources.md](./research/agent-context-sources.md) and keep hydrated caches local-only.
+That sequence keeps the current harness intact while making planning, execution posture, and infra ownership much more explicit and durable.