@event4u/agent-config 9.7.0 → 9.9.0

package/docs/contracts/memory-visibility-v1.md

@@ -1,160 +0,0 @@
----
-stability: beta
-keep-beta-until: 2026-08-12
----
-
-# Memory-visibility v1
-
-**Purpose.** Pin the format of the user-facing visibility line that
-every memory-using `/work` and `/implement-ticket` run prints, so the
-user can tell what the agent retrieved and what it ignored. This doc
-describes the **operator-facing surface** the engine emits per turn.
-
-**Scope.** Defines the line shape, the privacy floor, and the opt-out
-toggle. Does **not** define how memory entries are scored or routed —
-that is the sibling agent-memory package.
-
-Last refreshed: 2026-05-04.
-
-## Line shape
-
-A single one-line ASCII record, prefixed with the memory icon `🧠`
-and a single space:
-
-```
-🧠 Memory: <hits>/<asks> · ids=[<comma-separated-ids>]
-🧠 Memory: <hits>/<asks> · ids=[<comma-separated-ids>] · affected: <keys>
-```
-
-Examples:
-
-```
-🧠 Memory: 3/4 · ids=[mem_42, mem_57, mem_91]
-🧠 Memory: 0/2 · ids=[]
-🧠 Memory: 5/5 · ids=[mem_a01, mem_a02, mem_a03, …+2]
-🧠 Memory: 3/4 · ids=[mem_42, mem_57] · affected: confidence_band,applied_rules
-🧠 Memory: 2/4 · ids=[mem_42] · affected: none
-```
-
-Cap at 5 ids inline; remainder rendered as `…+N`. The full id list
-lives in the decision-trace JSON
-([`decision-trace-v1.md`](decision-trace-v1.md)).
-
-## Field semantics
-
-| Field | Meaning |
-|---|---|
-| `hits` | Count of `memory_retrieve_*` calls during this turn that returned ≥ 1 entry. |
-| `asks` | Count of `memory_retrieve_*` calls during this turn — both successful and empty. |
-| `ids` | Stable memory entry ids returned across all calls, deduped, ordered by retrieval timestamp. |
-| `affected` | Optional trailing segment. Comma-separated list of decision-trace keys that diverged when this memory was consulted vs not consulted. Closed key list defined in [`decision-trace-v1.md § Memory consequence keys`](decision-trace-v1.md#memory-consequence-keys). Rendered as `none` when `hits ≥ 1` but no key diverged. Omitted entirely when `hits == 0` or when the producer cannot compute a counterfactual trace. |
-
-`hits ≤ asks` is invariant. If `asks == 0`, the engine MUST suppress
-the line entirely — no `0/0` noise.
-
-The `affected` segment is a forward-compat trailing extension per
-the Stability clause below — clients pinned to the segment-free
-shape MUST still parse the line.
-
-## Privacy floor
-
-The visibility line and the JSON it derives from MUST NOT contain:
-
-- Entry **bodies**, summaries, or quoted snippets.
-- Secrets, tokens, environment values, or paths outside the
-  package's `agents/runtime/state/` and `tests/` allowlist.
-- User identifiers beyond what is already public in the working
-  directory's `.agent-settings.yml` (e.g. developer name).
-
-The privacy floor is enforced by
-`tests/contracts/test_memory_visibility_redaction.py` — any new
-content path that ships memory output adds a fixture there.
-
-## Opt-out
-
-On by default whenever memory is asked at all in a turn. Users can
-suppress the visibility line via:
-
-```yaml
-memory:
-  visibility: off
-```
-
-Off-mode does not silence the underlying memory calls; it only stops
-the line from rendering. The decision-trace JSON still records the
-counts and ids for downstream metrics.
-
-## Cadence interaction
-
-| `memory.cadence` | Visibility line |
-|---|---|
-| `auto` | suppress unless `asks ≥ 3` |
-| `always` | always when `asks ≥ 1` |
-| `never` | suppress entirely |
-
-Cadence lookup respects `.agent-settings.yml`'s `memory.cadence` key.
-Default is `always`. The legacy `memory.visibility: off` master switch
-(above) still wins over any `memory.cadence` value.
-
-> **History.** Before the 2026-06-01 `cost_profile` untangle this
-> cadence was keyed off `cost_profile` with the values
-> `lean | standard | verbose` — a collision with the rule-loading
-> `cost_profile` (`minimal | balanced | full`) that made the `lean`
-> branch unreachable on every real install. The cadence now owns its
-> own `memory.cadence` key.
-
-## End-of-run "Memory changed decisions" block
-
-When the visibility line carries a non-empty `affected` segment, the
-engine MUST also append a structured block at the end of the run's
-report surface so reviewers can audit attribution without parsing
-the inline segment:
-
-```
-Memory changed decisions:
-- mem_42 → confidence_band
-- mem_57 → confidence_band
-```
-
-Rules:
-
-- Suppressed entirely when `affected` is empty or absent (no key
-  diverged, or memory was not consulted).
-- Each consulted id from the visibility line's `ids` is paired with
-  each affected key. v1 attribution is aggregate; per-id attribution
-  is a follow-up risk tracked in the roadmap Risk register.
-- Block heading is the literal string `Memory changed decisions:`
-  followed by `-` bullet lines in `<id> → <key>` shape.
-- Implementation: `format_changed_decisions_block` in
-  `work_engine/scoring/memory_visibility.py`.
-
-## Audit-as-memory feed
-
-The visibility output produced by the engine is the input to the
-audit-as-memory pipeline (consumed by the sibling distribution +
-adoption work). Concretely:
-
-- The engine emits the line + the underlying counts to the
-  decision-trace JSON.
-- A consumer hook reads `agents/runtime/state/work/<work-id>/decision-trace-*.json`,
-  rolls counts up to the session level, and feeds the result back
-  into the agent-memory store as an audit entry.
-
-This contract pins the **producer** side. The audit-feed consumer
-lives outside the package's stable surface and must read this
-contract before parsing.
-
-## Stability
-
-Beta. Breaking changes between v1 and v2 are allowed in a minor
-release if the change appears in `CHANGELOG.md` under a `### Breaking`
-heading. Engines MUST gate on the visibility line shape — clients
-parsing the stream MUST treat unknown trailing fields as forward-
-compat extensions.
-
-## Cross-references
-
-- Decision-trace JSON consumes the same counts:
-  [`decision-trace-v1.md`](decision-trace-v1.md).
-- Privacy regression test path:
-  `tests/contracts/test_memory_visibility_redaction.py`.

package/docs/contracts/mental-models.md

@@ -1,336 +0,0 @@
----
-stability: stable
----
-
-
-# Mental Models — Top-30 Cross-Role Reference
-
-> **Status:** active · **Stability:** stable · **Owner:** unified-senior-roles Block K4
-> · **Hard cap:** 30 models · **R23 mitigation:** additions require removing one (zero-sum)
-
-A ranked, citation-only reference. Senior skills cite a model by
-its number when the cognition step it triggers needs framing prose
-the skill would otherwise re-invent. The doc is not auto-loaded
-and never appears in a prompt unless a skill names a row.
-
-## How this list was built
-
-Council iter-1 (Anthropic `claude-sonnet-4-5` + OpenAI `gpt-4o`,
-2026-05-05) Q2 verdict: **Ranked Top-30**, cross-role bias.
-Channel-specific (CAC/LTV-as-model, ad-auction, SEO keyword),
-C-suite strategy (Blue Ocean, Porter's Five Forces), and sales
-pipeline (BANT, MEDDIC) **explicitly cut** — they are domain
-heuristics, not cross-role cognition tools. Additions require
-removing one.
-
-Each entry: title · domain · ≤ 8-line summary · one citation example
-from a shipped skill (path is the proof of provenance, not a load
-instruction).
-
-## The 30 models
-
-### 1. First-principles thinking
-
-Strip the problem to assumptions you can defend from physics, contract,
-or hard data. Re-derive the answer from those, not by analogy to past
-decisions. The expensive part is identifying which "principle" is
-actually load-bearing vs. inherited belief; the cheap part is the
-re-derivation. Use when an inherited approach feels stale and you
-suspect the real constraint moved.
-*Cited by:* `.agent-src.uncondensed/skills/improve-before-implement/`
-(challenges weak requirements before code is written).
-
-### 2. Jobs-to-be-Done (JTBD)
-
-A user "hires" a product to make progress in a specific situation;
-the job is the situation × motivation × expected outcome, not the
-demographic. The unit of analysis is the **switch event** — what
-caused them to fire the previous solution. JTBD reframes feature
-requests as evidence of an unmet job, not feature gaps.
-*Cited by:* `.agent-src.uncondensed/skills/po-discovery/`
-(reframes fuzzy product asks via job-shape).
-
-### 3. Pareto principle (80/20)
-
-Roughly 80% of effects come from 20% of causes. The lift is in
-**identifying** the 20% — which user segment, which test failure,
-which N+1 query — not in re-stating the ratio. Anti-pattern: using
-80/20 as permission to ignore the long tail without measuring it.
-*Cited by:* `.agent-src.uncondensed/skills/performance-analysis/`
-(N+1 detection prioritizes the 20% of queries causing 80% of latency).
-
-### 4. Second-order thinking
-
-Ask "and then what?" until the chain breaks down. First-order picks
-what looks best now; second-order weighs the consequences of the
-consequences. Most "obvious" decisions die at second-order — the
-optimization that ships now creates the maintenance debt that kills
-velocity in 6 months.
-*Cited by:* `.agent-src.uncondensed/skills/adversarial-review/`
-(stress-tests a plan by walking past the immediate verdict).
-
-### 5. Opportunity cost
-
-The real cost of any choice is the **next-best alternative you did
-not pick**, not the dollar / time spent. A 2-week feature is not
-"2 weeks expensive" — it is the highest-value 2-week feature you
-chose not to ship instead. Naming the alternative makes the cost
-legible; pretending there isn't one is the failure mode.
-*Cited by:* `.agent-src.uncondensed/skills/rice-prioritization/`
-(scores compete for capacity; non-shipped items are the cost basis).
-
-### 6. Theory of constraints
-
-System throughput is bounded by exactly one constraint at a time.
-Improving any non-constraint resource is local optimization with
-zero system effect — usually negative, since it loads the actual
-constraint harder. The discipline: identify, exploit, subordinate,
-elevate, then find the next constraint.
-*Cited by:* `.agent-src.uncondensed/skills/funnel-analysis/`
-(identifies the single funnel stage that bounds conversion throughput).
-
-### 7. MVP (Minimum Viable Product)
-
-The smallest thing that produces real evidence about whether the
-hypothesis holds. MVP is a **measurement instrument**, not a
-junior-grade product. The trap is shipping an MVP that cannot
-distinguish "user behavior validates the hypothesis" from "user
-behavior was driven by something else"; that is just a small
-product.
-*Cited by:* `.agent-src.uncondensed/skills/po-discovery/`
-(scopes a discovery slice that produces a learning, not a feature).
-
-### 8. Build-Measure-Learn
-
-A loop: build the smallest test, measure the actual signal, decide
-to persevere or pivot. The skill is in **shortening the loop** —
-weeks beat months because months let teams rationalize a failed
-hypothesis. The loop is the artefact; any individual cycle is just
-one iteration.
-*Cited by:* `.agent-src.uncondensed/skills/test-driven-development/`
-(the build-measure-learn loop applied to one function at a time).
-
-### 9. Hypothesis-driven development
-
-State the hypothesis as a falsifiable sentence with a metric and a
-threshold **before** writing the code. "If we do X, metric Y will
-move by Z." Without the threshold, the team will declare any
-movement victory. With it, the team learns from the misses.
-*Cited by:* `.agent-src.uncondensed/skills/project-analysis-hypothesis-driven/`
-(competing hypotheses + validation loops + evidence-based conclusions).
-
-### 10. Reversible vs. irreversible decisions
-
-One-way doors deserve a high bar; two-way doors deserve a low bar
-plus speed. The bias under uncertainty: shipping a reversible
-decision early is almost always cheaper than the meeting required
-to decide. The skill is recognizing irreversibility — usually data
-shape, public API surface, or hiring.
-*Cited by:* `.agent-src.uncondensed/skills/decision-record/`
-(records the reversal-criteria so the irreversibility verdict is auditable).
-
-### 11. DX as first-class concern
-
-Developer experience is a leading indicator of throughput; it is not
-a polish task. Slow tests, fragile local setup, and surprising tool
-output compound — every developer pays the tax every day. Treat DX
-issues like user-facing bugs, with severity and SLA. The compounding
-math makes "fix it later" almost always wrong.
-*Cited by:* `.agent-src.uncondensed/skills/test-performance/`
-(test-suite latency is a developer-facing metric, optimized as such).
-
-### 12. Conway's Law
-
-The systems an organization builds mirror its communication structure.
-Re-orgs propagate to architecture; architecture changes that fight the
-org chart fail. The lever is bidirectional: pick the architecture you
-want, then engineer the communication paths that produce it.
-*Cited by:* `.agent-src.uncondensed/skills/api-design/`
-(bounded-context choices follow team boundaries, not the other way around).
-
-### 13. Occam's Razor
-
-Among hypotheses that fit the evidence equally well, prefer the one
-that introduces the fewest new entities. In debugging, the boring
-explanation (typo, off-by-one, stale cache) is usually correct. The
-trap is **assuming** instead of **falsifying** — Occam suggests
-order of investigation, not a verdict.
-*Cited by:* `.agent-src.uncondensed/skills/systematic-debugging/`
-(reproduce → isolate → hypothesize, simplest hypothesis first).
-
-### 14. Meadows leverage points
-
-Donella Meadows' ranking: the highest-leverage interventions in a
-system are paradigm shifts, then goals, then rules — far above
-parameter tweaks. Most "improvement" effort fights parameters
-(numbers, delays) at the bottom of the ranking. Climb the ranking
-before optimizing.
-*Cited by:* `.agent-src.uncondensed/skills/architecture-review-lens/`
-(boundary / dependency-direction issues are higher-leverage than tweaks).
-
-### 15. Signal vs. noise
-
-Every metric is a sum of underlying signal and measurement noise.
-A change of size N is meaningful only if N exceeds the noise floor
-for that metric × that horizon. The discipline: estimate the noise
-band first, then evaluate the change. Without the noise band, every
-movement looks like a trend.
-*Cited by:* `.agent-src.uncondensed/skills/funnel-analysis/`
-(stage-to-stage drop is read against the typical week-on-week noise).
-
-### 16. Leading vs. lagging indicators
-
-Lagging indicators (revenue, churn, retention) are accurate and
-late. Leading indicators (activation events, repeat-use, support
-volume) are noisy and early. Operating on lagging alone means the
-team learns about problems after they cost money. Pair them: lagging
-is the score, leading is the steering wheel.
-*Cited by:* `.agent-src.uncondensed/skills/dashboard-design/`
-(RED / USE / Golden Signals split leading from lagging explicitly).
-
-### 17. Churn as health metric
-
-Retention curves expose what acquisition cannot: whether the product
-delivers ongoing value. A flat retention tail means the product
-works for the survivors; a sliding tail means the underlying job is
-not getting done. Churn is upstream of CAC payback — fix it first,
-then scale.
-*Cited by:* `.agent-src.uncondensed/skills/funnel-analysis/`
-(retention bend distinguishes activation problems from product-fit).
-
-### 18. Pull vs. push systems
-
-Pull systems start work when downstream capacity opens; push systems
-start work when upstream capacity is free. Push optimizes individual
-utilization, pull optimizes flow. Most software teams claim pull and
-operate push (queues filling up, sprints overcommitted, WIP
-unmanaged). The fix is WIP limits, not motivation.
-*Cited by:* `.agent-src.uncondensed/skills/laravel-horizon/`
-(queue-balance strategies are pull-vs-push policy in concrete form).
-
-### 19. Shift-left
-
-Move quality / security / accessibility checks earlier in the
-lifecycle — to the developer's machine, the PR, the design — where
-the cost of fixing is order-of-magnitude lower. The trade-off:
-shift-left adds friction at the front; the math holds when defect
-escape rate drops faster than the friction cost.
-*Cited by:* `.agent-src.uncondensed/skills/threat-modeling/`
-(threats enumerated before implementation, not after pen-test).
-
-### 20. Latency vs. throughput
-
-Optimizing one usually hurts the other; the trade-off is structural,
-not implementation-detail. Batch processing trades latency for
-throughput; real-time pipelines trade throughput for latency. The
-mistake is optimizing without naming which one matters for the user
-job at hand.
-*Cited by:* `.agent-src.uncondensed/skills/database/`
-(index strategy and query batching surface the trade-off explicitly).
-
-### 21. Trust boundaries
-
-Every system has explicit lines across which inputs cannot be
-trusted: client → server, tenant A → tenant B, free tier → paid
-tier, public endpoint → internal service. Threats enter at boundary
-crossings; defense lives at the crossing, not deeper. Drawing the
-boundary correctly is half the security work.
-*Cited by:* `.agent-src.uncondensed/skills/threat-modeling/`
-(produces trust boundaries + abuse cases mapped to files).
-
-### 22. Defense in depth
-
-No single control is sufficient; layer entry validation, business
-rules, environment hardening, and instrumentation so a bypass at
-one layer is caught at the next. The trap is mistaking redundancy
-for security theatre — each layer must have an independent failure
-mode, not a copy of the previous one.
-*Cited by:* `.agent-src.uncondensed/skills/defense-in-depth/`
-(turns local fix into structural one across four guard layers).
-
-### 23. Blast radius
-
-Before changing shared code, enumerate every call site, event
-consumer, queue worker, API client, migration, and test that the
-change touches. The radius is the work; the diff is the artefact.
-Underestimating radius is the failure mode that breaks production
-when the change "looked small".
-*Cited by:* `.agent-src.uncondensed/skills/blast-radius-analyzer/`
-(file:line citation per dependency, BEFORE the edit).
-
-### 24. Iron triangle (scope / time / quality)
-
-Scope, time, and quality are coupled — fix two, the third moves.
-Pretending to fix all three is how teams ship at low quality and
-call it on-time. The honest move is naming which two are fixed and
-which one absorbs the variance, BEFORE the work starts.
-*Cited by:* `.agent-src.uncondensed/skills/refine-ticket/`
-(AC sharpening forces explicit scope decisions before estimation).
-
-### 25. Definition of Done
-
-A shared, auditable description of what "done" means for a unit of
-work — tests, docs, deployment, comms. Without one, every team
-member ships their personal threshold and disputes downstream. The
-discipline is making it visible, agreed, and consistently applied —
-not the specific items on it.
-*Cited by:* `.agent-src.uncondensed/skills/verify-completion-evidence/`
-(fresh evidence is required before any "done" claim).
-
-### 26. Postmortem-driven learning
-
-Incidents are signal-rich; the team that captures the signal beats
-the team that hides the incident. Blameless postmortems separate
-contribution from blame, surface systemic causes, and produce
-mitigations that reduce future incident rate — not just the count
-of one-off fixes.
-*Cited by:* `.agent-src.uncondensed/skills/incident-commander/`
-(severity framing + comms cadence + post-mortem skeleton).
-
-### 27. Tech debt as interest
-
-Tech debt has a principal (the shortcut taken) and an interest
-payment (the ongoing tax on velocity). Carrying the debt is the
-right call when the principal is repayable and the interest is
-small; the failure is treating ongoing high-interest debt as a
-fixed cost. Track it like a balance sheet.
-*Cited by:* `.agent-src.uncondensed/skills/tech-debt-tracker/`
-(interest-vs-principal framing, prioritisation by carrying cost).
-
-### 28. Mise en place
-
-Prepare every input — data, fixtures, dependencies, decisions —
-before the cooking step starts. Switching between prep and cook is
-where errors enter. In software, the analogue is staged commits,
-prepared test fixtures, and decisions locked before implementation.
-The discipline is the savings, not the metaphor.
-*Cited by:* `.agent-src.uncondensed/skills/existing-ui-audit/`
-(inventory before any non-trivial UI edit, hard gate).
-
-### 29. Premortem
-
-Before kickoff, assume the project failed and ask why — names the
-risks the team already knows but has not voiced. The trick is the
-past-tense framing; "what could go wrong" surfaces less than "it
-failed, what happened". Cheap; high signal-to-noise; the residual
-output is a risk register the team actually defends.
-*Cited by:* `.agent-src.uncondensed/skills/risk-officer/`
-(blast-radius framing, mitigations, residual-risk verdict pre-commit).
-
-### 30. Inversion
-
-Instead of asking "how do I succeed at X?", ask "how would I
-guarantee failure at X?" — then avoid that. Inversion exposes the
-non-obvious failure modes that direct planning misses, especially
-in security, ops, and people problems where the failure surface is
-larger than the success surface.
-*Cited by:* `.agent-src.uncondensed/skills/adversarial-review/`
-(devil's-advocate stress-test poking holes in a plan).
-
-## Adding or removing a model
-
-Hard cap is 30. Adding a 31st requires removing one and naming the
-swap in the PR description — the council verdict (R23) is that the
-list earns its weight only if every entry is load-bearing. Removal
-criteria: ≤ 1 citation across the catalog after one minor release,
-or superseded by a more general entry.