@event4u/agent-config 6.1.0 → 7.0.1

package/src/scripts/ai_council/prompts.py

@@ -1,567 +0,0 @@
-"""Neutrality system prompts for the council.
-
-Council members must NOT see the host agent's reasoning, internal
-state, or framing language. Each prompt asks for an independent
-critique on the artefact's own merits.
-
-Anti-patterns guarded against in tests (test_prompts.py):
-- No leak of host-agent identity ("Augment", "Claude Code", etc.).
-- No "the agent thinks X" framing.
-- No instructions that bias toward agreement.
-"""
-
-from __future__ import annotations
-
-from scripts.ai_council.project_context import ProjectContext
-
-NEUTRALITY_PREAMBLE = """\
-You are an independent reviewer. You have NOT seen any prior reasoning,
-agent output, or commentary on the artefact below. Critique it on its
-own merits. Disagree if warranted. Cite specific lines or sections.
-Do not assume the artefact is correct just because it was sent to you.
-""".strip()
-
-# Host-agent identity strings that must never leak into a council member's
-# view. Lines containing any of these (case-insensitive substring) are
-# dropped before assembly. See `ai-council` skill § Neutrality.
-HOST_AGENT_IDENTITY_PATTERNS = (
-    "augment",
-    "claude code",
-    "cursor agent",
-    "cursor ide",
-    "cline",
-    "windsurf",
-    "copilot agent",
-)
-
-# Per-mode addenda — appended after the preamble.
-
-PROMPT_MODE = """\
-The artefact is a free-form question or proposal from a developer.
-Respond with:
-1. Your honest assessment (agree / disagree / mixed).
-2. The single strongest argument for your position.
-3. The single strongest counter-argument the developer should consider.
-4. Concrete next steps if you agree, or concrete alternatives if you disagree.
-""".strip()
-
-ROADMAP_MODE = """\
-The artefact is a proposed implementation roadmap. Critique it as if
-you were a senior engineer asked to greenlight it. Focus on:
-1. Hidden coupling between phases that the roadmap glosses over.
-2. Steps that are too coarse to verify ("implement X" vs "X with Y test").
-3. Missing rollback or kill-switch criteria.
-4. Sequencing risks — does step N really not block step N+1?
-5. Open questions disguised as decisions, or vice versa.
-""".strip()
-
-DIFF_MODE = """\
-The artefact is a code diff. Review it for:
-1. Correctness — bugs, off-by-one, null-safety, type drift.
-2. Security — injection, secrets, unsafe deserialization, authZ gaps.
-3. Test coverage — uncovered branches, missing regression tests.
-4. Maintainability — surprise dependencies, naming drift, dead code.
-End with: APPROVE / REQUEST_CHANGES / REJECT and one sentence why.
-""".strip()
-
-FILES_MODE = """\
-The artefact is a set of source files for an architectural review.
-Map out:
-1. The boundaries you see (modules, layers, trust zones).
-2. The strongest design decision present.
-3. The weakest design decision present.
-4. The single change that would most reduce future maintenance cost.
-""".strip()
-
-# Specialised modes — used by /council-pr, /council-design,
-# /council-optimize. Selected via `mode_override=` in `/council` so the
-# base modes (`prompt`, `roadmap`, `diff`, `files`) keep their v2 byte
-# shape for back-compat with existing callers.
-
-PR_MODE = """\
-The artefact is a code diff from a pull request. Review with both a
-correctness lens AND a shipping-risk lens:
-1. Correctness — bugs, off-by-one, null-safety, type drift.
-2. Security — injection, secrets, unsafe deserialization, authZ gaps.
-3. Test coverage — uncovered branches, missing regression tests.
-4. Shipping risk — does this PR mix concerns that should be split?
-   Is the blast radius bigger than the title implies?
-5. Reviewer fatigue — is anything in the diff that a tired reviewer
-   would rubber-stamp but should not?
-End with: APPROVE / REQUEST_CHANGES / REJECT, one sentence why, and
-the single highest-leverage change the PR author should make before
-merge.
-""".strip()
-
-DESIGN_MODE = """\
-The artefact is a design document, ADR, or architecture proposal.
-Critique it as if you were greenlighting it as a senior engineer.
-Focus on:
-1. Trust boundaries and module coupling the design glosses over.
-2. Rollback / kill-switch criteria the design omits.
-3. Sequencing risk — does step N really not block step N+1?
-4. Open questions disguised as decisions, or decisions disguised as
-   open questions.
-5. The single architectural call you would push back on the hardest,
-   and what evidence would change your mind.
-""".strip()
-
-OPTIMIZE_MODE = """\
-The artefact is an optimization target — code, a query, a profile,
-or an existing optimization report. Produce ranked, evidence-based
-suggestions for the metric stated in the user's original ask. You
-MUST:
-1. Rank suggestions by expected impact on the stated metric, not by
-   effort or cleverness.
-2. Cite the evidence (line, query plan, profile entry) for every
-   suggestion. No hand-wave "this is probably slow".
-3. State at least one suggestion you explicitly REJECT as
-   low-leverage, so the user does not over-engineer.
-4. Mark at least one suggestion as hypothesis (requires measurement
-   before committing) versus confirmed (already supported by the
-   evidence in the artefact).
-""".strip()
-
-ANALYSIS_MODE = """\
-The artefact is a local analysis output (from a project analyzer,
-audit script, or codebase scan). Critique the **analysis itself**, not
-the underlying codebase. You MUST:
-1. Flag findings that are restated under different headings —
-   deduplicate aggressively. The downstream consumer wants a unique
-   Top-N, not a long list with overlap.
-2. Score the evidence quality of each finding: confirmed (the
-   analysis cites file:line / metric), inferred (plausible from
-   stated context), or speculative (no citation, vibes-only).
-   Speculative findings must be called out by name.
-3. Identify findings that are roadmap-ready (concrete enough to land
-   as a phase step) vs ones that need a discovery loop first.
-4. Propose 3–5 follow-up actions ranked by leverage — what the next
-   roadmap should attack first. Cite the supporting finding(s) by id
-   or heading.
-End with: a Top-N consensus list (one bullet per finding the
-analysis surfaces) plus a single sentence on the strongest blind
-spot the analysis itself has.
-""".strip()
-
-
-DEBATE_MODE = """\
-The artefact is the topic of a structured multi-round debate. You are
-one of several independent reviewers. Round-specific instructions:
-1. Round 1 — state your strongest, most defensible position on the
-   topic. Argue from evidence and first principles. Do not hedge.
-2. Round 2+ — read the anonymised positions from the previous round.
-   Identify the SINGLE strongest opposing position and write a
-   rebuttal addressed at its strongest steel-manned form. Your task
-   is to find the load-bearing flaw the opposing reviewer missed —
-   do NOT search for common ground.
-End each round with: a one-line position summary and the single
-piece of evidence that would change your mind.
-""".strip()
-
-
-_MODE_TABLE = {
-    "prompt": PROMPT_MODE,
-    "roadmap": ROADMAP_MODE,
-    "diff": DIFF_MODE,
-    "files": FILES_MODE,
-    "pr": PR_MODE,
-    "design": DESIGN_MODE,
-    "optimize": OPTIMIZE_MODE,
-    "analysis": ANALYSIS_MODE,
-    "debate": DEBATE_MODE,
-}
-
-
-# ── Consensus-scoring prompts (Phase 4 / F3) ──────────────────────────
-#
-# Two-step extraction + scoring round used by the analysis lens. The
-# extraction pass asks each member to surface its own top findings in
-# a strict JSON shape; the scoring pass asks each member to rate
-# anonymised findings produced by the *other* members.
-#
-# Iron Law of Neutrality applies to both: the extraction prompt never
-# names other reviewers, and the scoring prompt strips the source
-# author by using `Finding-A` / `Finding-B` labels (see
-# `consensus.anonymize_findings`).
-
-FINDING_EXTRACTION_PROMPT = """\
-You have just produced an analysis. Re-emit your top findings as a
-strict JSON array suitable for downstream tooling. Each item MUST
-have:
-
-    {"id": "<short-slug>", "text": "<one-sentence finding>"}
-
-Rules:
-- 3-7 findings, ordered by importance (most important first).
-- `id` is a 1-3 word kebab-case slug, unique within your array.
-- `text` is a single sentence, no markdown, no reviewer self-reference.
-- Wrap the array in a ```json``` fenced block. No commentary outside it.
-""".strip()
-
-FINDING_SCORING_PROMPT = """\
-Below are findings from other independent reviewers, presented with
-neutral labels (Finding-A, Finding-B, …). Score each one on its
-merits. You MUST emit a strict JSON array, one entry per finding,
-in this shape:
-
-    {"finding_id": "Finding-A", "score": 1-10, "agree": true|false,
-     "reason": "<one-sentence justification>"}
-
-Rules:
-- `score` is an integer 1 (weak / irrelevant) to 10 (load-bearing /
-  must-address).
-- `agree=true` means you would surface this same finding yourself;
-  `agree=false` means you think it is wrong, overstated, or off-topic.
-- `reason` is a single sentence, no markdown.
-- Wrap the array in a ```json``` fenced block. No commentary outside it.
-
-You may not see your own findings in the list — that is by design.
-""".strip()
-
-
-# ── Synthesis templates (Phase 3 / F2) ────────────────────────────────
-#
-# Lens-aware synthesis prompts. Each entry maps a lens key onto the
-# block the host agent should produce when summarising member responses.
-# R4 Q4 split: decision lenses get a Karpathy-structured template;
-# creative lenses (design / optimize) stay open-ended prose (empty
-# string → renderer falls back to the bare "Convergence / Divergence"
-# slot). Input modes (prompt / roadmap / diff / files) map onto the
-# `default` decision template via `synthesis_template()`.
-
-DEFAULT_SYNTHESIS = """\
-Summarise the council using the structured shape below. Be terse,
-cite reviewers by label, and refuse to invent agreement that is not
-in the responses.
-
-### Agreement
-Points that two or more reviewers converged on, each as a single line.
-
-### Clashes
-Points where reviewers disagreed. State both sides with a one-line
-reviewer-label citation per side.
-
-### Blind spots
-Items that none of the reviewers raised but that the artefact's
-context suggests are load-bearing. Maximum three. Mark each as
-`needs-verification` when the host agent inferred it rather than
-read it directly from a response.
-
-### Recommendation
-A single sentence: which course the host agent should advise the
-user to take, grounded in the strongest converged point.
-
-### Next step
-One concrete next action the user can take in their current turn.
-""".strip()
-
-PR_SYNTHESIS = """\
-Summarise the council with the PR-review shape below.
-
-### Consensus
-Findings where two or more reviewers agreed, each one a single line.
-
-### Conflicts
-Findings where reviewers disagreed. State both sides with reviewer
-labels; do not pick a winner here — that lives in the recommendation.
-
-### Must-fix before merge
-Items at least one reviewer marked `REQUEST_CHANGES` or `REJECT`
-and the host agent confirms are load-bearing. Maximum five.
-
-### Recommendation
-APPROVE / REQUEST_CHANGES / REJECT and a single sentence justifying
-the verdict, anchored on the strongest consensus or must-fix line.
-""".strip()
-
-ANALYSIS_SYNTHESIS = """\
-Summarise the council with the analysis-lens shape below.
-
-### Top-10 by consensus
-Findings ranked by how many reviewers surfaced them. Format each
-line as: `N. <finding> — cited by <reviewer labels> · evidence:
-confirmed | inferred | speculative · roadmap-ready: yes | needs-discovery`.
-Stop at ten or when only single-reviewer items remain, whichever
-comes first.
-
-### Supporting
-Findings that one reviewer raised and at least one other treated as
-plausible but did not independently surface. One line each, same
-metadata shape as Top-10.
-
-### Outliers
-Single-reviewer findings the others did not engage with. Keep them
-— they are signal for a future deeper analysis pass — but mark each
-as `unverified-by-council`.
-""".strip()
-
-# Creative lenses — open-ended prose, no template. The renderer keeps
-# the bare "Convergence / Divergence" slot so the host agent can write
-# free-form synthesis.
-_CREATIVE_PASSTHROUGH = ""
-
-_SYNTHESIS_TABLE = {
-    "default": DEFAULT_SYNTHESIS,
-    "pr": PR_SYNTHESIS,
-    "analysis": ANALYSIS_SYNTHESIS,
-    "design": _CREATIVE_PASSTHROUGH,
-    "optimize": _CREATIVE_PASSTHROUGH,
-}
-
-# Input modes inherit the `default` decision template. Lens overrides
-# (`pr`/`design`/`optimize`/`analysis`) pick their own row.
-_INPUT_MODE_TO_SYNTHESIS_KEY = {
-    "prompt": "default",
-    "roadmap": "default",
-    "diff": "default",
-    "files": "default",
-}
-
-
-def synthesis_template(mode: str | None) -> str:
-    """Return the synthesis-prompt body for a given mode.
-
-    `mode=None` collapses to the `default` decision template (back-
-    compat for callers that do not thread the lens through). Unknown
-    modes raise ValueError — fail closed, never silently passthrough.
-
-    Returns an empty string for creative lenses (`design`/`optimize`)
-    so callers can detect "no template, render bare" without a magic
-    sentinel.
-    """
-    if mode is None:
-        return _SYNTHESIS_TABLE["default"]
-    if mode in _SYNTHESIS_TABLE:
-        return _SYNTHESIS_TABLE[mode]
-    if mode in _INPUT_MODE_TO_SYNTHESIS_KEY:
-        return _SYNTHESIS_TABLE[_INPUT_MODE_TO_SYNTHESIS_KEY[mode]]
-    raise ValueError(
-        f"Unknown synthesis mode {mode!r}. "
-        f"Expected one of: {sorted(set(_SYNTHESIS_TABLE) | set(_INPUT_MODE_TO_SYNTHESIS_KEY))}"
-    )
-
-
-def all_synthesis_modes() -> list[str]:
-    """Return the lens keys that have explicit synthesis templates."""
-    return sorted(_SYNTHESIS_TABLE)
-
-
-def _strip_host_identity(text: str) -> str:
-    """Drop any *whole line* containing a host-agent identity substring.
-
-    Strategy (locked by council review, 2026-05-02): a line is dropped
-    in full as soon as any host-identity needle (Augment / Claude Code
-    / Cursor / Cline / Windsurf, etc.) appears anywhere on it. We err
-    toward false-positive — slightly less context — over false-negative
-    — a neutrality leak. Substring-only stripping was rejected because
-    it can leave dangling clauses that still hint at the host.
-    """
-    if not text:
-        return text
-    kept: list[str] = []
-    for line in text.splitlines():
-        low = line.lower()
-        if any(needle in low for needle in HOST_AGENT_IDENTITY_PATTERNS):
-            continue
-        kept.append(line)
-    return "\n".join(kept)
-
-
-def handoff_preamble(
-    project: ProjectContext | None,
-    original_ask: str,
-) -> str:
-    """Neutral context-handoff for council members.
-
-    Layout (any block omitted when its inputs are empty):
-
-        Project: <name>
-        Stack: <stack>
-        Purpose: <repo_purpose>
-
-        The user originally asked:
-        > <original_ask>
-
-        <NEUTRALITY_PREAMBLE>
-
-    Iron Law of Neutrality (`ai-council` skill): lines containing a
-    host-agent identity string (Augment, Claude Code, Cursor, Cline,
-    Windsurf, Copilot agent) are dropped from `project` fields and
-    `original_ask` BEFORE assembly so they cannot leak.
-
-    `project=None` and/or `original_ask=""` collapses the output to
-    `NEUTRALITY_PREAMBLE` alone (back-compat with v1 callers).
-    """
-    blocks: list[str] = []
-
-    if project is not None and not project.is_empty():
-        ctx_lines: list[str] = []
-        if project.name:
-            ctx_lines.append(f"Project: {project.name}")
-        if project.stack:
-            ctx_lines.append(f"Stack: {project.stack}")
-        if project.repo_purpose:
-            ctx_lines.append(f"Purpose: {project.repo_purpose}")
-        ctx = _strip_host_identity("\n".join(ctx_lines)).strip()
-        if ctx:
-            blocks.append(ctx)
-
-    cleaned_ask = _strip_host_identity(original_ask or "").strip()
-    if cleaned_ask:
-        quoted = "\n".join(f"> {ln}" for ln in cleaned_ask.splitlines())
-        blocks.append(f"The user originally asked:\n{quoted}")
-
-    blocks.append(NEUTRALITY_PREAMBLE)
-    return "\n\n".join(blocks)
-
-
-def system_prompt_for(
-    mode: str,
-    *,
-    project: ProjectContext | None = None,
-    original_ask: str = "",
-) -> str:
-    """Build the full system prompt for one of the four input modes.
-
-    Raises ValueError on an unknown mode — callers must use one of
-    `prompt`, `roadmap`, `diff`, `files`.
-
-    When `project` and `original_ask` are both omitted, the result is
-    `NEUTRALITY_PREAMBLE` + per-mode addendum (v1 shape, byte-identical
-    to pre-2a output). When either is supplied, the neutral handoff
-    preamble replaces the bare `NEUTRALITY_PREAMBLE`.
-    """
-    if mode not in _MODE_TABLE:
-        raise ValueError(
-            f"Unknown council mode {mode!r}. "
-            f"Expected one of: {sorted(_MODE_TABLE)}"
-        )
-    head = handoff_preamble(project, original_ask)
-    return f"{head}\n\n{_MODE_TABLE[mode]}"
-
-
-def all_modes() -> list[str]:
-    return sorted(_MODE_TABLE)
-
-
-def advisor_system_prompt(
-    persona_text: str,
-    *,
-    project: ProjectContext | None = None,
-    original_ask: str = "",
-) -> str:
-    """Build the system prompt for an advisor-mode call (Phase 6).
-
-    Layout: neutral handoff preamble (same shape every council member
-    sees, regardless of mode) + the advisor's persona body. The
-    mode-specific addendum from ``_MODE_TABLE`` is intentionally
-    replaced — the persona file owns the full instructional surface
-    for an advisor call.
-    """
-    head = handoff_preamble(project, original_ask)
-    body = (persona_text or "").strip()
-    if not body:
-        raise ValueError("advisor_system_prompt: persona_text is empty.")
-    return f"{head}\n\n{body}"
-
-
-
-def build_extraction_user_prompt(original_analysis: str) -> str:
-    """User-message body for the finding-extraction pass.
-
-    Pairs the prior analysis text with the extraction-prompt rules so
-    the member re-emits its own findings in machine-readable form.
-    """
-    cleaned = _strip_host_identity(original_analysis or "").strip()
-    return f"{FINDING_EXTRACTION_PROMPT}\n\n---\n\n{cleaned}"
-
-
-def build_scoring_user_prompt(anonymised: dict[str, str]) -> str:
-    """User-message body for the scoring pass.
-
-    `anonymised` maps `Finding-A`/`Finding-B`/… → finding text. Author
-    identities MUST already be stripped — this function does NOT
-    re-anonymise, it just renders.
-    """
-    lines = [FINDING_SCORING_PROMPT, "", "---", ""]
-    for label, text in anonymised.items():
-        lines.append(f"### {label}\n\n{text}")
-    return "\n\n".join(lines)
-
-
-# ── Peer-review (Phase 5 / F1, Karpathy anonymous review) ────────────
-#
-# After the final deliberation round, each member sees the OTHER
-# members' deliberation outputs under neutral `Response-A` / `Response-B`
-# labels and produces a Karpathy-style critique: strongest response,
-# weakest blind spot, what all of them missed. Provider identity is
-# stripped (Iron Law of Neutrality § peer-review); advisor persona
-# labels (Phase 6) are preserved by the caller via `anonymize_responses`.
-#
-# Reviewers never see their own response — that is by design (the
-# orchestrator filters self before calling `build_peer_review_user_prompt`).
-
-PEER_REVIEW_PROMPT = """\
-Below are responses from other independent reviewers to the same
-artefact you just reviewed. Each is labelled with a neutral identifier
-(`Response-A`, `Response-B`, …). You do NOT know which model produced
-which response. Critique them as a peer — your goal is to surface
-signal the round-1 deliberation may have missed.
-
-Respond in plain prose under exactly these four headings:
-
-### Strongest response
-Name the single response whose argument or evidence is most
-load-bearing. Cite the label. One paragraph.
-
-### Weakest blind spot
-The single most important thing one specific response missed,
-glossed over, or got wrong. Cite the label. One paragraph.
-
-### What everyone missed
-A point none of the responses raised but that the artefact's context
-suggests is load-bearing. One paragraph. Mark as `needs-verification`
-when you inferred it rather than read it directly from the artefact.
-
-### Refinement
-One sentence: which course the synthesizer should prefer in light of
-the above, grounded in the strongest converged signal.
-
-Rules:
-- Cite labels exactly as given (`Response-A`, not `A` or `the first one`).
-- Do not invent agreement or disagreement that is not visible in the
-  responses themselves.
-- You may NOT see your own response in the list — that is by design.
-""".strip()
-
-PEER_REVIEW_SYNTHESIS_ADDENDUM = """\
-
-### Peer-Review-Surfaced Blind Spots
-Items the peer-review round surfaced that the round-1 responses did
-not. Cite the peer-reviewer label and the targeted response label
-(`Reviewer A on Response-B: <one-line summary>`). Maximum three.
-""".rstrip()
-
-
-def build_peer_review_user_prompt(anonymised: dict[str, str]) -> str:
-    """User-message body for the peer-review pass.
-
-    `anonymised` maps `Response-A` / `Response-B` / … → response text.
-    Provider identities MUST already be stripped by the caller (see
-    `consensus.anonymize_responses`); this function does NOT re-anonymise,
-    it just renders.
-    """
-    lines = [PEER_REVIEW_PROMPT, "", "---", ""]
-    for label, text in anonymised.items():
-        lines.append(f"### {label}\n\n{text}")
-    return "\n\n".join(lines)
-
-
-def peer_review_synthesis_addendum() -> str:
-    """Return the synthesis-template addendum used when peer-review fired.
-
-    Appended to the lens-specific synthesis template by the renderer.
-    Creative-lens (prose) runs receive only the bare section header so
-    the host agent can write free-form synthesis underneath it.
-    """
-    return PEER_REVIEW_SYNTHESIS_ADDENDUM