@exaudeus/workrail 3.14.0 → 3.16.0

package/workflows/mr-review-workflow.agentic.v2.json

@@ -1,8 +1,15 @@
 {
   "id": "mr-review-workflow-agentic",
-  "name": "MR Review Workflow (Lean v2 • Notes-First • Evidence-Driven Reviewer Families)",
-  "version": "2.2.0",
+  "name": "MR Review Workflow (Lean v2 \u2022 Notes-First \u2022 Evidence-Driven Reviewer Families)",
+  "version": "2.4.0",
   "description": "Lean v2 MR review workflow. Merges intake, missing-input gating, context gathering, and re-triage into one structured front phase, then drives review through a shared fact packet, parallel reviewer families, contradiction-driven synthesis, and evidence-first final validation.",
+  "about": "## MR Review Workflow\n\nThis workflow conducts a structured, evidence-driven code review of a merge request or pull request. It is designed for cases where you want a thorough, audit-quality review rather than a quick glance -- particularly when the change touches critical surfaces, spans many files, or carries real production risk.\n\n**What it does:**\nThe workflow locates and bounds the review target, enriches it with PR context and ticket intent, classifies the change by risk and shape, then runs parallel \"reviewer family\" agents (covering correctness, architecture, runtime risk, tests/docs, and more) from a shared neutral fact packet. It reconciles contradictions between reviewer families, stress-tests the recommendation with adversarial validators, and produces a final handoff with severity-classified findings and ready-to-post MR comments.\n\n**When to use it:**\n- Before merging a PR that touches auth, data models, APIs, or critical paths\n- When you want independent perspectives on a change without the noise of an unstructured review\n- When the change is large or the reviewer is unfamiliar with the surrounding code\n- When you need a reproducible audit trail for compliance or team review processes\n\n**What it produces:**\nA final review recommendation (approve / request changes / needs discussion) with a confidence band, severity-graded findings (Critical / Major / Minor / Nit), ready-to-post MR comments, a coverage ledger showing which review domains were checked, and an honest disclosure of any context that could not be recovered.\n\n**How to get good results:**\nProvide the PR URL, branch name, or diff. The workflow can recover most context on its own -- ticket links, repo patterns, policy docs -- but if the change has non-obvious intent, a one-sentence description of the goal helps calibrate review sensitivity. The workflow will not post comments or approve/reject without explicit instruction.",
+  "examples": [
+    "Review PR #47 adding JWT refresh token rotation before it merges to main",
+    "Review the feature/cache-expiration branch for correctness and production risk before merging",
+    "Audit PR #312 refactoring the payment service data model for backward compatibility and rollout safety",
+    "Review the open MR for the new rate-limiting middleware against our API contract standards"
+  ],
   "recommendedPreferences": {
     "recommendedAutonomy": "guided",
     "recommendedRiskPolicy": "conservative"
@@ -10,6 +17,29 @@
   "features": [
     "wr.features.subagent_guidance"
   ],
+  "assessments": [
+    {
+      "id": "review_readiness_gate",
+      "purpose": "Assess whether the review is ready to hand off across three orthogonal dimensions. Each must be high independently -- strength in one cannot compensate for weakness in another.",
+      "dimensions": [
+        {
+          "id": "evidence_quality",
+          "purpose": "Key findings are backed by specific code references, line numbers, or concrete observations -- not intuition or pattern-matching alone.",
+          "levels": ["low", "high"]
+        },
+        {
+          "id": "coverage_completeness",
+          "purpose": "All relevant review domains have been adequately checked for this change. No material blind spots remain unacknowledged.",
+          "levels": ["low", "high"]
+        },
+        {
+          "id": "contradiction_resolution",
+          "purpose": "Material contradictions and competing interpretations are resolved or explicitly acknowledged with a clear rationale for the chosen position.",
+          "levels": ["low", "high"]
+        }
+      ]
+    }
+  ],
   "preconditions": [
     "User provides an MR/PR objective, diff, patch, branch, or equivalent review target.",
     "The agent can inspect the changed files, surrounding code, and any deterministic validation artifacts needed to review accurately.",
@@ -34,11 +64,17 @@
     {
       "id": "phase-0-understand-and-classify",
       "title": "Phase 0: Locate, Bound, Enrich & Classify",
-      "prompt": "Build the review foundation in one pass.\n\nStep 1 — Early exit / minimum inputs:\nBefore exploring, verify that the review target is real and inspectable. If the diff, changed files, or equivalent review material are completely absent and cannot be inferred with tools, ask for the minimum missing artifact and stop. Do NOT ask questions you can resolve with tools.\n\nStep 2 — Locate and bound the review target:\nAttempt to determine the strongest available review target and boundary.\n\nAttempt to establish:\n- `reviewTargetKind` from the strongest available source such as PR/MR, branch, patch, diff, or local working tree changes\n- `reviewTargetSource` describing where the target came from\n- likely PR/MR identity when available (`prUrl`, `prNumber`)\n- likely base / ancestor reference (`baseCandidate`, `mergeBaseRef`) when available\n- whether the branch may include inherited or out-of-scope changes\n- `boundaryConfidence`: High / Medium / Low\n\nDo not over-prescribe your own investigation path. Use the strongest available evidence and record uncertainty honestly.\n\nStep 3 — Enrich with context:\nRecover the strongest available intent and policy context from whatever sources are actually available.\n\nAttempt to recover:\n- MR title and purpose\n- ticket / issue / acceptance context (`ticketRefs`, `ticketContext`)\n- supporting docs / specs / rollout context (`supportingDocsFound`)\n- repo or user policy/convention context when it is likely to affect review judgment (`policySourcesFound`)\n- `contextConfidence`: High / Medium / Low\n\nStep 4 — Review-surface hygiene:\nClassify the visible change into a minimal review surface.\n\nSet:\n- `coreReviewSurface`\n- `likelyNoiseOrMechanicalChurn`\n- `likelyInheritedOrOutOfScopeChanges`\n- `reviewSurfaceSummary`\n- `reviewScopeWarnings`\n\nThe goal is not a giant ledger. The goal is to avoid treating every visible changed file as equally worthy of deep review by default.\n\nStep 5 — Classify the review:\nAfter exploration, classify the work.\n\nSet:\n- `reviewMode`: QUICK / STANDARD / THOROUGH\n- `riskLevel`: Low / Medium / High\n- `shapeProfile`: choose the best primary label from `isolated_change`, `crosscutting_change`, `mechanically_noisy_change`, or `ambiguous_boundary`\n- `changeTypeProfile`: choose the best primary label from `general_code_change`, `api_contract_change`, `data_model_or_migration`, `security_sensitive`, or `test_only`\n- `maxParallelism`: 0 / 3 / 5\n- `criticalSurfaceTouched`: true / false\n- `needsSimulation`: true / false\n- `needsBoundaryFollowup`: true / false\n- `needsContextFollowup`: true / false\n- `needsReviewerBundle`: true / false\n\nDecision guidance:\n- QUICK: very small, isolated, low-risk changes with little ambiguity\n- STANDARD: typical feature or bug-fix reviews with moderate ambiguity or moderate risk\n- THOROUGH: critical surfaces, architectural novelty, high risk, broad change sets, or strong need for independent reviewer perspectives\n\nMinimal routing guidance:\n- if `boundaryConfidence = Low`, bias toward boundary/context follow-up before strong recommendation confidence\n- if `changeTypeProfile = api_contract_change`, bias toward contract/consumer/backward-compatibility scrutiny\n- if `changeTypeProfile = data_model_or_migration`, bias toward rollout / compatibility / simulation scrutiny\n- if `changeTypeProfile = security_sensitive`, bias toward adversarial/runtime-risk scrutiny and lower tolerance for weak evidence\n- if `changeTypeProfile = test_only`, bias toward stronger false-positive suppression\n- if `shapeProfile = mechanically_noisy_change`, bias toward stronger noise filtering and lower appetite for style-only findings\n\nStep 6 — Optional deeper context:\nIf `reviewMode` is STANDARD or THOROUGH and context remains incomplete, and delegation is available, spawn TWO WorkRail Executors SIMULTANEOUSLY running `routine-context-gathering` with focus=COMPLETENESS and focus=DEPTH. Synthesize both outputs before finishing this step.\n\nStep 7 — Human-facing artifact:\nChoose `reviewDocPath` only if a live artifact will materially improve human readability. Default suggestion: `mr-review.md` at the project root. This artifact is optional and never canonical workflow state.\n\nFallback behavior:\n- if PR/MR is not found but a branch/diff is inspectable, continue with downgraded context confidence and disclose missing PR context later\n- if the branch is inspectable but merge-base / ancestor remains ambiguous, continue with downgraded boundary confidence, set `needsBoundaryFollowup = true`, and disclose the uncertainty later\n- if ticket or supporting docs are missing, continue with downgraded context confidence and avoid overclaiming intent-sensitive findings\n- if only a patch/diff is available, continue if it is inspectable, but keep lower confidence on intent/boundary-dependent conclusions\n- if the review target itself is missing, ask only for that missing artifact and stop\n\nSet these keys in the next `continue_workflow` call's `context` object:\n- `reviewTargetKind`\n- `reviewTargetSource`\n- `prUrl`\n- `prNumber`\n- `baseCandidate`\n- `mergeBaseRef`\n- `boundaryConfidence`\n- `contextConfidence`\n- `mrTitle`\n- `mrPurpose`\n- `ticketRefs`\n- `ticketContext`\n- `supportingDocsFound`\n- `policySourcesFound`\n- `accessibleContextSources`\n- `missingContextSources`\n- `focusAreas`\n- `changedFileCount`\n- `criticalSurfaceTouched`\n- `reviewMode`\n- `riskLevel`\n- `shapeProfile`\n- `changeTypeProfile`\n- `maxParallelism`\n- `reviewDocPath`\n- `contextSummary`\n- `candidateFiles`\n- `moduleRoots`\n- `contextUnknownCount`\n- `coverageGapCount`\n- `authorIntentUnclear`\n- `needsSimulation`\n- `needsBoundaryFollowup`\n- `needsContextFollowup`\n- `needsReviewerBundle`\n- `coreReviewSurface`\n- `likelyNoiseOrMechanicalChurn`\n- `likelyInheritedOrOutOfScopeChanges`\n- `reviewSurfaceSummary`\n- `reviewScopeWarnings`\n- `openQuestions`\n\nRules:\n- answer your own questions with tools whenever possible\n- only keep true human-decision questions in `openQuestions`\n- keep `openQuestions` bounded to the minimum necessary\n- classify AFTER exploring, not before\n- before leaving this phase, either establish the likely review boundary or explicitly record why you could not",
+      "prompt": "Build the review foundation in one pass.\n\nStep 1 \u2014 Early exit / minimum inputs:\nBefore exploring, verify that the review target is real and inspectable. If the diff, changed files, or equivalent review material are completely absent and cannot be inferred with tools, ask for the minimum missing artifact and stop. Do NOT ask questions you can resolve with tools.\n\nStep 2 \u2014 Locate and bound the review target:\nAttempt to determine the strongest available review target and boundary.\n\nAttempt to establish:\n- `reviewTargetKind` from the strongest available source such as PR/MR, branch, patch, diff, or local working tree changes\n- `reviewTargetSource` describing where the target came from\n- likely PR/MR identity when available (`prUrl`, `prNumber`)\n- likely base / ancestor reference (`baseCandidate`, `mergeBaseRef`) when available\n- whether the branch may include inherited or out-of-scope changes\n- `boundaryConfidence`: High / Medium / Low\n\nDo not over-prescribe your own investigation path. Use the strongest available evidence and record uncertainty honestly.\n\nStep 3 \u2014 Enrich with context:\nRecover the strongest available intent and policy context from whatever sources are actually available.\n\nAttempt to recover:\n- MR title and purpose\n- ticket / issue / acceptance context (`ticketRefs`, `ticketContext`)\n- supporting docs / specs / rollout context (`supportingDocsFound`)\n- repo or user policy/convention context when it is likely to affect review judgment (`policySourcesFound`)\n- `contextConfidence`: High / Medium / Low\n\nStep 4 \u2014 Review-surface hygiene:\nClassify the visible change into a minimal review surface.\n\nSet:\n- `coreReviewSurface`\n- `likelyNoiseOrMechanicalChurn`\n- `likelyInheritedOrOutOfScopeChanges`\n- `reviewSurfaceSummary`\n- `reviewScopeWarnings`\n\nThe goal is not a giant ledger. The goal is to avoid treating every visible changed file as equally worthy of deep review by default.\n\nStep 5 \u2014 Classify the review:\nAfter exploration, classify the work.\n\nSet:\n- `reviewMode`: QUICK / STANDARD / THOROUGH\n- `riskLevel`: Low / Medium / High\n- `shapeProfile`: choose the best primary label from `isolated_change`, `crosscutting_change`, `mechanically_noisy_change`, or `ambiguous_boundary`\n- `changeTypeProfile`: choose the best primary label from `general_code_change`, `api_contract_change`, `data_model_or_migration`, `security_sensitive`, or `test_only`\n- `maxParallelism`: 0 / 3 / 5\n- `criticalSurfaceTouched`: true / false\n- `needsSimulation`: true / false\n- `needsBoundaryFollowup`: true / false\n- `needsContextFollowup`: true / false\n- `needsReviewerBundle`: true / false\n\nDecision guidance:\n- QUICK: very small, isolated, low-risk changes with little ambiguity\n- STANDARD: typical feature or bug-fix reviews with moderate ambiguity or moderate risk\n- THOROUGH: critical surfaces, architectural novelty, high risk, broad change sets, or strong need for independent reviewer perspectives\n\nMinimal routing guidance:\n- if `boundaryConfidence = Low`, bias toward boundary/context follow-up before strong recommendation confidence\n- if `changeTypeProfile = api_contract_change`, bias toward contract/consumer/backward-compatibility scrutiny\n- if `changeTypeProfile = data_model_or_migration`, bias toward rollout / compatibility / simulation scrutiny\n- if `changeTypeProfile = security_sensitive`, bias toward adversarial/runtime-risk scrutiny and lower tolerance for weak evidence\n- if `changeTypeProfile = test_only`, bias toward stronger false-positive suppression\n- if `shapeProfile = mechanically_noisy_change`, bias toward stronger noise filtering and lower appetite for style-only findings\n\nStep 6 \u2014 Optional deeper context:\nIf `reviewMode` is STANDARD or THOROUGH and context remains incomplete, and delegation is available, spawn TWO WorkRail Executors SIMULTANEOUSLY running `routine-context-gathering` with focus=COMPLETENESS and focus=DEPTH. Synthesize both outputs before finishing this step.\n\nStep 7 \u2014 Human-facing artifact:\nChoose `reviewDocPath` only if a live artifact will materially improve human readability. Default suggestion: `mr-review.md` at the project root. This artifact is optional and never canonical workflow state.\n\nFallback behavior:\n- if PR/MR is not found but a branch/diff is inspectable, continue with downgraded context confidence and disclose missing PR context later\n- if the branch is inspectable but merge-base / ancestor remains ambiguous, continue with downgraded boundary confidence, set `needsBoundaryFollowup = true`, and disclose the uncertainty later\n- if ticket or supporting docs are missing, continue with downgraded context confidence and avoid overclaiming intent-sensitive findings\n- if only a patch/diff is available, continue if it is inspectable, but keep lower confidence on intent/boundary-dependent conclusions\n- if the review target itself is missing, ask only for that missing artifact and stop\n\nSet these keys in the next `continue_workflow` call's `context` object:\n- `reviewTargetKind`\n- `reviewTargetSource`\n- `prUrl`\n- `prNumber`\n- `baseCandidate`\n- `mergeBaseRef`\n- `boundaryConfidence`\n- `contextConfidence`\n- `mrTitle`\n- `mrPurpose`\n- `ticketRefs`\n- `ticketContext`\n- `supportingDocsFound`\n- `policySourcesFound`\n- `accessibleContextSources`\n- `missingContextSources`\n- `focusAreas`\n- `changedFileCount`\n- `criticalSurfaceTouched`\n- `reviewMode`\n- `riskLevel`\n- `shapeProfile`\n- `changeTypeProfile`\n- `maxParallelism`\n- `reviewDocPath`\n- `contextSummary`\n- `candidateFiles`\n- `moduleRoots`\n- `contextUnknownCount`\n- `coverageGapCount`\n- `authorIntentUnclear`\n- `needsSimulation`\n- `needsBoundaryFollowup`\n- `needsContextFollowup`\n- `needsReviewerBundle`\n- `coreReviewSurface`\n- `likelyNoiseOrMechanicalChurn`\n- `likelyInheritedOrOutOfScopeChanges`\n- `reviewSurfaceSummary`\n- `reviewScopeWarnings`\n- `openQuestions`\n\nRules:\n- answer your own questions with tools whenever possible\n- only keep true human-decision questions in `openQuestions`\n- keep `openQuestions` bounded to the minimum necessary\n- classify AFTER exploring, not before\n- before leaving this phase, either establish the likely review boundary or explicitly record why you could not\n\nAlso set  in the context object: one sentence describing what you are trying to accomplish (e.g. \"implement OAuth refresh token rotation\", \"review PR #47 before merge\"). This populates the session title in the Workspace console immediately.",
       "requireConfirmation": {
         "or": [
-          { "var": "reviewMode", "equals": "THOROUGH" },
-          { "var": "riskLevel", "equals": "High" }
+          {
+            "var": "reviewMode",
+            "equals": "THOROUGH"
+          },
+          {
+            "var": "riskLevel",
+            "equals": "High"
+          }
         ]
       }
     },
@@ -55,7 +91,10 @@
         "goal": "Freeze a shared factual basis for review and decide how much reviewer-family parallelism is warranted.",
         "constraints": [
           [
-            { "kind": "ref", "refId": "wr.refs.notes_first_durability" }
+            {
+              "kind": "ref",
+              "refId": "wr.refs.notes_first_durability"
+            }
           ],
           "The fact packet is the primary truth for downstream reviewer families.",
           "Keep `recommendationHypothesis` as a secondary hypothesis to challenge, not a frame to defend."
@@ -89,10 +128,16 @@
         "goal": "Run the selected reviewer families in parallel from the same fact packet, then synthesize their output as evidence rather than conclusions.",
         "constraints": [
           [
-            { "kind": "ref", "refId": "wr.refs.notes_first_durability" }
+            {
+              "kind": "ref",
+              "refId": "wr.refs.notes_first_durability"
+            }
           ],
           [
-            { "kind": "ref", "refId": "wr.refs.synthesis_under_disagreement" }
+            {
+              "kind": "ref",
+              "refId": "wr.refs.synthesis_under_disagreement"
+            }
           ],
           "Each reviewer family must use `reviewFactPacket` as primary truth.",
           "Use `recommendationHypothesis` only as secondary comparison context.",
@@ -138,7 +183,10 @@
             "goal": "If contradictions, blind spots, or important coverage gaps remain, run only the smallest targeted follow-up needed.",
             "constraints": [
               [
-                { "kind": "ref", "refId": "wr.refs.parallelize_cognition_serialize_synthesis" }
+                {
+                  "kind": "ref",
+                  "refId": "wr.refs.parallelize_cognition_serialize_synthesis"
+                }
               ],
               "Prefer one compact targeted bundle over repeated broad delegation moments.",
               "Do not regather broad context unless a contradiction proves the original fact packet is insufficient.",
@@ -162,7 +210,7 @@
         {
           "id": "phase-4b-canonical-synthesis",
           "title": "Canonical Synthesis and Coverage Update",
-          "prompt": "Synthesize all reviewer-family outputs and targeted follow-up into one canonical review state.\n\nPart A — Compare against your hypothesis:\n- revisit `recommendationHypothesis`\n- what did the evidence confirm?\n- what did it challenge?\n- what changed your mind, what held firm, and what do you explicitly reject?\n\nPart B — Synthesis decision table:\n- if 2+ reviewer families flag the same serious issue with the same severity, treat it as validated\n- if the same issue is flagged with different severities, default to the higher severity unless the lower-severity position includes specific counter-evidence\n- if one family flags an issue and others are silent, investigate it but do not automatically block unless it is clearly critical or security-sensitive\n- if one family says false positive and another says valid issue, require explicit main-agent adjudication in notes before finalization\n- if recommendation spread shows material disagreement, findings override recommendation until reconciled\n- if simulation reveals a new production risk, add a new finding and re-evaluate recommendation confidence\n\nPart C — Coverage ledger rules:\n- move a domain from `uncertain` to `checked` only when evidence is materially adequate\n- keep a domain `uncertain` if disagreement or missing evidence still materially affects recommendation quality\n- mark `not_applicable` only when the MR genuinely does not engage that dimension\n- clear `contradicted` only when the contradiction is explicitly resolved by evidence or adjudication\n- clear `needs_followup` only when required follow-up has actually been completed or the domain is explicitly downgraded as non-material\n\nPart D — Recommendation confidence rules:\n- set `recommendationConfidenceBand = High` only if no unresolved material contradictions remain, no important coverage domains remain uncertain, false-positive risk is not material, and the evidence is strong enough for the current mode\n- set `recommendationConfidenceBand = Medium` when one bounded uncertainty remains but the recommendation is still directionally justified\n- set `recommendationConfidenceBand = Low` when multiple viable interpretations remain, major contradictions are unresolved, or important coverage gaps still weaken the recommendation\n\nSet these keys in the next `continue_workflow` call's `context` object:\n- `reviewFindings`\n- `criticalFindingsCount`\n- `majorFindingsCount`\n- `minorFindingsCount`\n- `nitFindingsCount`\n- `recommendation`\n- `recommendationConfidenceBand`\n- `recommendationDriftDetected`\n- `coverageLedger`\n- `coverageUncertainCount`\n- `docCompletenessConcernCount`\n\nIf `reviewDocPath` exists, keep it aligned for human readability only. Notes/context remain workflow truth.",
+          "prompt": "Synthesize all reviewer-family outputs and targeted follow-up into one canonical review state.\n\nPart A \u2014 Compare against your hypothesis:\n- revisit `recommendationHypothesis`\n- what did the evidence confirm?\n- what did it challenge?\n- what changed your mind, what held firm, and what do you explicitly reject?\n\nPart B \u2014 Synthesis decision table:\n- if 2+ reviewer families flag the same serious issue with the same severity, treat it as validated\n- if the same issue is flagged with different severities, default to the higher severity unless the lower-severity position includes specific counter-evidence\n- if one family flags an issue and others are silent, investigate it but do not automatically block unless it is clearly critical or security-sensitive\n- if one family says false positive and another says valid issue, require explicit main-agent adjudication in notes before finalization\n- if recommendation spread shows material disagreement, findings override recommendation until reconciled\n- if simulation reveals a new production risk, add a new finding and re-evaluate recommendation confidence\n\nPart C \u2014 Coverage ledger rules:\n- move a domain from `uncertain` to `checked` only when evidence is materially adequate\n- keep a domain `uncertain` if disagreement or missing evidence still materially affects recommendation quality\n- mark `not_applicable` only when the MR genuinely does not engage that dimension\n- clear `contradicted` only when the contradiction is explicitly resolved by evidence or adjudication\n- clear `needs_followup` only when required follow-up has actually been completed or the domain is explicitly downgraded as non-material\n\nPart D \u2014 Recommendation confidence rules:\n- set `recommendationConfidenceBand = High` only if no unresolved material contradictions remain, no important coverage domains remain uncertain, false-positive risk is not material, and the evidence is strong enough for the current mode\n- set `recommendationConfidenceBand = Medium` when one bounded uncertainty remains but the recommendation is still directionally justified\n- set `recommendationConfidenceBand = Low` when multiple viable interpretations remain, major contradictions are unresolved, or important coverage gaps still weaken the recommendation\n\nSet these keys in the next `continue_workflow` call's `context` object:\n- `reviewFindings`\n- `criticalFindingsCount`\n- `majorFindingsCount`\n- `minorFindingsCount`\n- `nitFindingsCount`\n- `recommendation`\n- `recommendationConfidenceBand`\n- `recommendationDriftDetected`\n- `coverageLedger`\n- `coverageUncertainCount`\n- `docCompletenessConcernCount`\n\nIf `reviewDocPath` exists, keep it aligned for human readability only. Notes/context remain workflow truth.",
           "requireConfirmation": false
         },
         {
@@ -183,10 +231,16 @@
         "goal": "Stress-test the current recommendation before final handoff.",
         "constraints": [
           [
-            { "kind": "ref", "refId": "wr.refs.adversarial_challenge_rules" }
+            {
+              "kind": "ref",
+              "refId": "wr.refs.adversarial_challenge_rules"
+            }
           ],
           [
-            { "kind": "ref", "refId": "wr.refs.synthesis_under_disagreement" }
+            {
+              "kind": "ref",
+              "refId": "wr.refs.synthesis_under_disagreement"
+            }
           ],
           "Validation output is evidence to synthesize, not an automatic reopen signal."
         ],
@@ -205,10 +259,30 @@
           "If no validator can materially break the current recommendation and findings are internally consistent, proceed to handoff."
         ]
       },
+      "assessmentRefs": [
+        "review_readiness_gate"
+      ],
+      "assessmentConsequences": [
+        {
+          "when": {
+            "anyEqualsLevel": "low"
+          },
+          "effect": {
+            "kind": "require_followup",
+            "guidance": "Address whichever dimensions scored low: evidence_quality low -- anchor each finding to a specific file, function, or line; remove findings without concrete grounding. coverage_completeness low -- investigate uncovered domains or explicitly acknowledge gaps in the ledger. contradiction_resolution low -- resolve each contradiction or explicitly state your position with rationale."
+          }
+        }
+      ],
       "requireConfirmation": {
         "or": [
-          { "var": "validatorConsensusLevel", "equals": "Low" },
-          { "var": "recommendationConfidenceBand", "equals": "Low" }
+          {
+            "var": "validatorConsensusLevel",
+            "equals": "Low"
+          },
+          {
+            "var": "recommendationConfidenceBand",
+            "equals": "Low"
+          }
         ]
       }
     },

package/workflows/personal-learning-materials-creation-branched.json

@@ -1,188 +1,195 @@
 {
-    "id": "personal-learning-materials-creation-branched",
-    "name": "Personal Learning Materials Creation Workflow (Branched)",
-    "version": "1.1.0",
-    "description": "A systematic workflow for creating high-quality learning materials with three thoroughness paths: Quick Start (essential materials), Balanced (comprehensive system), and Comprehensive (enterprise-grade). Adapts depth and features based on user time constraints and quality goals.",
-    "clarificationPrompts": [
-        "Do you have a completed learning plan with defined objectives and modules?",
-        "How much time can you dedicate weekly to materials creation?",
-        "What content creation tools do you have access to?",
-        "What material formats work best for your learning style?"
-    ],
-    "preconditions": [
-        "Completed learning plan or course design with clear objectives",
-        "Access to basic content creation tools (word processor, simple design software)",
-        "Time allocated for focused materials development sessions",
-        "Clear understanding of personal learning style preferences"
-    ],
-    "metaGuidance": [
-        "OBJECTIVE ALIGNMENT: Every material must directly support specific learning objectives",
-        "ADAPTIVE DEPTH: Adjust thoroughness based on selected path without compromising quality",
-        "IMMEDIATE USABILITY: Materials should be ready to use without additional setup",
-        "QUALITY OVER QUANTITY: Better fewer high-quality materials than many mediocre ones"
-    ],
-    "steps": [
+  "id": "personal-learning-materials-creation-branched",
+  "name": "Personal Learning Materials Creation Workflow (Branched)",
+  "version": "1.1.0",
+  "description": "Use this to create learning materials for a course or subject. Adapts depth and format to your time budget — Quick Start, Balanced, or Comprehensive.",
+  "about": "## Personal Learning Materials Creation Workflow\n\nUse this to create the actual study materials for a course or subject you are learning -- study guides, exercises, assessments, and spaced-repetition review materials. This workflow assumes you already have a learning plan or course design with defined objectives; it focuses on producing materials that directly support those objectives.\n\n### What it produces\n\nDepending on the path you choose:\n\n- **Quick Start (2-3 weeks)**: study guides and basic exercises for immediate use.\n- **Balanced (4-6 weeks)**: a complete learning system -- study guides, exercises, assessments, and spaced repetition materials.\n- **Comprehensive (8-12 weeks)**: a full learning ecosystem with interactive elements, effectiveness measurement, and a scalable update protocol.\n\n### When to use it\n\n- You have a learning plan and need to turn it into usable materials.\n- You are preparing for a certification, exam, or structured self-study program.\n- You want materials tailored to your specific objectives rather than relying entirely on off-the-shelf resources.\n\n### When NOT to use it\n\n- You haven't designed your learning course yet -- use the Personal Learning Course Design workflow first to define objectives and structure.\n- You need to design a course for others to take -- use the Learner-Centered Course workflow instead.\n\n### How to get good results\n\n- Select the path honestly based on available time. Starting with Quick Start and expanding later is better than committing to Comprehensive and abandoning it.\n- Have your learning objectives written out before starting -- the workflow maps every material directly to an objective.\n- Be specific about your preferred learning formats (text, diagrams, flashcards, practice problems) at the start.",
+  "examples": [
+    "Create study guides and exercises for my AWS Solutions Architect certification prep",
+    "Build a complete set of flashcards and practice problems for learning Rust ownership",
+    "Create materials for a 6-week self-study course on Bayesian statistics",
+    "Make a quick-start study guide for the CKAD Kubernetes exam"
+  ],
+  "clarificationPrompts": [
+    "Do you have a completed learning plan with defined objectives and modules?",
+    "How much time can you dedicate weekly to materials creation?",
+    "What content creation tools do you have access to?",
+    "What material formats work best for your learning style?"
+  ],
+  "preconditions": [
+    "Completed learning plan or course design with clear objectives",
+    "Access to basic content creation tools (word processor, simple design software)",
+    "Time allocated for focused materials development sessions",
+    "Clear understanding of personal learning style preferences"
+  ],
+  "metaGuidance": [
+    "OBJECTIVE ALIGNMENT: Every material must directly support specific learning objectives",
+    "ADAPTIVE DEPTH: Adjust thoroughness based on selected path without compromising quality",
+    "IMMEDIATE USABILITY: Materials should be ready to use without additional setup",
+    "QUALITY OVER QUANTITY: Better fewer high-quality materials than many mediocre ones"
+  ],
+  "steps": [
+    {
+      "id": "phase-0-select-thoroughness-path",
+      "title": "Phase 0: Select Your Materials Creation Path",
+      "prompt": "Choose your learning materials creation approach based on your time, goals, and quality needs:\n\n📚 **Quick Start Path**\n• Timeline: 2-3 weeks (5-8 hours total)\n• Materials: Study guides + basic exercises\n• Best for: Time-constrained learners, getting started quickly\n• Outcome: Functional materials for immediate use\n\n🎯 **Balanced Path**\n• Timeline: 4-6 weeks (12-20 hours total)\n• Materials: Study guides + exercises + assessments + spaced repetition\n• Best for: Comprehensive learning support, professional quality\n• Outcome: Complete learning system with proven effectiveness\n\n🏆 **Comprehensive Path**\n• Timeline: 8-12 weeks (25-40 hours total)\n• Materials: All types + interactive elements + full testing\n• Best for: Professional educators, enterprise-grade projects\n• Outcome: Optimized learning ecosystem with maximum effectiveness\n\nWhich path best matches your timeline and quality goals?",
+      "agentRole": "You are a learning materials consultant specializing in helping users choose the right approach for their constraints and goals. Guide users toward the path that best fits their needs. Set the thoroughnessLevel context variable based on their selection.",
+      "guidance": [
+        "Help users make realistic choices based on their actual time availability",
+        "Explain the trade-offs between speed and comprehensiveness",
+        "Encourage users to start with a simpler path if uncertain"
+      ],
+      "requireConfirmation": true
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "analyze-learning-plan-quick",
+      "runCondition": {
+        "var": "thoroughnessLevel",
+        "equals": "Quick"
+      },
+      "title": "Phase 1: Essential Learning Plan Analysis (Quick Start)",
+      "prompt": "Extract the core elements from your learning plan for rapid materials creation:\n\n**STEP 1: Core Objectives**\n• Identify your 3-5 most important learning objectives\n• Note success criteria for each objective\n• Skip complex prerequisite analysis\n\n**STEP 2: Essential Materials Map**\n• For each objective, identify if you need: study guide, basic exercises, or both\n• Focus on immediate learning needs, not comprehensive coverage\n• Note existing resources that can supplement your materials\n\n**STEP 3: Quick Resource Assessment**\n• List available source materials (books, courses, notes)\n• Identify 2-3 key resources for each objective\n• Note time constraints and creation priorities\n\nGoal: Practical roadmap for essential materials creation in minimal time.",
+      "agentRole": "You are an efficient learning analyst focused on rapid materials development. Help users identify core needs quickly without over-analysis. Emphasize practical, immediately actionable insights.",
+      "guidance": [
+        "Keep analysis focused and action-oriented",
+        "Avoid perfectionism - good enough is good enough",
+        "Focus on high-impact materials that provide immediate value"
+      ],
+      "validationCriteria": [
         {
-            "id": "phase-0-select-thoroughness-path",
-            "title": "Phase 0: Select Your Materials Creation Path",
-            "prompt": "Choose your learning materials creation approach based on your time, goals, and quality needs:\n\n\ud83d\udcda **Quick Start Path**\n\u2022 Timeline: 2-3 weeks (5-8 hours total)\n\u2022 Materials: Study guides + basic exercises\n\u2022 Best for: Time-constrained learners, getting started quickly\n\u2022 Outcome: Functional materials for immediate use\n\n\ud83c\udfaf **Balanced Path**\n\u2022 Timeline: 4-6 weeks (12-20 hours total)\n\u2022 Materials: Study guides + exercises + assessments + spaced repetition\n\u2022 Best for: Comprehensive learning support, professional quality\n\u2022 Outcome: Complete learning system with proven effectiveness\n\n\ud83c\udfc6 **Comprehensive Path**\n\u2022 Timeline: 8-12 weeks (25-40 hours total)\n\u2022 Materials: All types + interactive elements + full testing\n\u2022 Best for: Professional educators, enterprise-grade projects\n\u2022 Outcome: Optimized learning ecosystem with maximum effectiveness\n\nWhich path best matches your timeline and quality goals?",
-            "agentRole": "You are a learning materials consultant specializing in helping users choose the right approach for their constraints and goals. Guide users toward the path that best fits their needs. Set the thoroughnessLevel context variable based on their selection.",
-            "guidance": [
-                "Help users make realistic choices based on their actual time availability",
-                "Explain the trade-offs between speed and comprehensiveness",
-                "Encourage users to start with a simpler path if uncertain"
-            ],
-            "requireConfirmation": true
+          "type": "contains",
+          "value": "learning objective",
+          "message": "Must identify core learning objectives"
         },
         {
-            "id": "analyze-learning-plan-quick",
-            "runCondition": {
-                "var": "thoroughnessLevel",
-                "equals": "Quick"
-            },
-            "title": "Phase 1: Essential Learning Plan Analysis (Quick Start)",
-            "prompt": "Extract the core elements from your learning plan for rapid materials creation:\n\n**STEP 1: Core Objectives**\n\u2022 Identify your 3-5 most important learning objectives\n\u2022 Note success criteria for each objective\n\u2022 Skip complex prerequisite analysis\n\n**STEP 2: Essential Materials Map**\n\u2022 For each objective, identify if you need: study guide, basic exercises, or both\n\u2022 Focus on immediate learning needs, not comprehensive coverage\n\u2022 Note existing resources that can supplement your materials\n\n**STEP 3: Quick Resource Assessment**\n\u2022 List available source materials (books, courses, notes)\n\u2022 Identify 2-3 key resources for each objective\n\u2022 Note time constraints and creation priorities\n\nGoal: Practical roadmap for essential materials creation in minimal time.",
-            "agentRole": "You are an efficient learning analyst focused on rapid materials development. Help users identify core needs quickly without over-analysis. Emphasize practical, immediately actionable insights.",
-            "guidance": [
-                "Keep analysis focused and action-oriented",
-                "Avoid perfectionism - good enough is good enough",
-                "Focus on high-impact materials that provide immediate value"
-            ],
-            "validationCriteria": [
-                {
-                    "type": "contains",
-                    "value": "learning objective",
-                    "message": "Must identify core learning objectives"
-                },
-                {
-                    "type": "contains",
-                    "value": "study guide",
-                    "message": "Must specify study guide requirements"
-                },
-                {
-                    "type": "length",
-                    "min": 200,
-                    "max": 800,
-                    "message": "Analysis should be concise but actionable (200-800 characters)"
-                }
-            ],
-            "hasValidation": true
+          "type": "contains",
+          "value": "study guide",
+          "message": "Must specify study guide requirements"
         },
         {
-            "id": "analyze-learning-plan-balanced",
-            "runCondition": {
-                "var": "thoroughnessLevel",
-                "equals": "Balanced"
-            },
-            "title": "Phase 1: Comprehensive Learning Plan Analysis (Balanced)",
-            "prompt": "Analyze your learning plan to guide professional-quality materials creation:\n\n**STEP 1: Objective Architecture**\n\u2022 Extract all learning objectives with success criteria\n\u2022 Identify prerequisite relationships between objectives\n\u2022 Note assessment strategies for each objective\n\u2022 Map objectives to modules and time allocations\n\n**STEP 2: Materials Requirements Matrix**\n\u2022 For each objective, determine needed materials: study guides, exercises, assessments\n\u2022 Identify concepts requiring multiple reinforcement approaches\n\u2022 Note which objectives need spaced repetition support\n\u2022 Flag areas requiring practical application or hands-on practice\n\n**STEP 3: Resource Integration Plan**\n\u2022 Evaluate existing resources for quality and coverage\n\u2022 Identify gaps where custom materials are essential\n\u2022 Plan integration between created materials and external resources\n\u2022 Design quality standards for materials consistency\n\nGoal: Strategic foundation for professional learning materials system.",
-            "agentRole": "You are a professional instructional designer specializing in systematic materials development. Help users create comprehensive yet practical plans that balance quality with efficiency. Focus on proven instructional design principles.",
-            "guidance": [
-                "Apply instructional design best practices systematically",
-                "Balance thoroughness with practical time constraints",
-                "Focus on materials that work together as a cohesive system"
-            ],
-            "validationCriteria": [
-                {
-                    "type": "contains",
-                    "value": "assessment",
-                    "message": "Must include assessment strategy planning"
-                },
-                {
-                    "type": "length",
-                    "min": 400,
-                    "max": 1200,
-                    "message": "Analysis should be comprehensive (400-1200 characters)"
-                }
-            ],
-            "hasValidation": true
+          "type": "length",
+          "min": 200,
+          "max": 800,
+          "message": "Analysis should be concise but actionable (200-800 characters)"
+        }
+      ],
+      "hasValidation": true
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "analyze-learning-plan-balanced",
+      "runCondition": {
+        "var": "thoroughnessLevel",
+        "equals": "Balanced"
+      },
+      "title": "Phase 1: Comprehensive Learning Plan Analysis (Balanced)",
+      "prompt": "Analyze your learning plan to guide professional-quality materials creation:\n\n**STEP 1: Objective Architecture**\n• Extract all learning objectives with success criteria\n• Identify prerequisite relationships between objectives\n• Note assessment strategies for each objective\n• Map objectives to modules and time allocations\n\n**STEP 2: Materials Requirements Matrix**\n• For each objective, determine needed materials: study guides, exercises, assessments\n• Identify concepts requiring multiple reinforcement approaches\n• Note which objectives need spaced repetition support\n• Flag areas requiring practical application or hands-on practice\n\n**STEP 3: Resource Integration Plan**\n• Evaluate existing resources for quality and coverage\n• Identify gaps where custom materials are essential\n• Plan integration between created materials and external resources\n• Design quality standards for materials consistency\n\nGoal: Strategic foundation for professional learning materials system.",
+      "agentRole": "You are a professional instructional designer specializing in systematic materials development. Help users create comprehensive yet practical plans that balance quality with efficiency. Focus on proven instructional design principles.",
+      "guidance": [
+        "Apply instructional design best practices systematically",
+        "Balance thoroughness with practical time constraints",
+        "Focus on materials that work together as a cohesive system"
+      ],
+      "validationCriteria": [
+        {
+          "type": "contains",
+          "value": "assessment",
+          "message": "Must include assessment strategy planning"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "length",
+          "min": 400,
+          "max": 1200,
+          "message": "Analysis should be comprehensive (400-1200 characters)"
+        }
+      ],
+      "hasValidation": true
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "analyze-learning-plan-comprehensive",
+      "runCondition": {
+        "var": "thoroughnessLevel",
+        "equals": "Comprehensive"
+      },
+      "title": "Phase 1: Expert Learning Plan Analysis (Comprehensive)",
+      "prompt": "Conduct thorough analysis of learning architecture for enterprise-grade materials:\n\n**STEP 1: Learning System Architecture**\n• Map complete learning objective hierarchy with dependencies\n• Analyze cognitive load and complexity progression\n• Identify multiple learning pathways and individual differences\n• Design assessment strategy aligned with learning taxonomies\n\n**STEP 2: Advanced Materials Strategy**\n• Determine optimal material types for each learning objective\n• Plan multi-modal approach for different learning styles\n• Design integration points for spaced repetition and active recall\n• Identify opportunities for interactive and adaptive elements\n\n**STEP 3: Quality & Effectiveness Framework**\n• Establish criteria for materials effectiveness measurement\n• Plan user testing and feedback integration\n• Design continuous improvement and iteration protocols\n• Create scalability and maintenance considerations\n\nGoal: Strategic foundation for optimized, enterprise-grade learning ecosystem.",
+      "agentRole": "You are an expert learning systems architect with deep expertise in advanced instructional design and learning optimization. Guide users in creating sophisticated materials that maximize learning effectiveness through evidence-based approaches.",
+      "guidance": [
+        "Apply advanced learning science principles and research",
+        "Focus on long-term effectiveness and optimization",
+        "Design for scalability and continuous improvement"
+      ],
+      "validationCriteria": [
+        {
+          "type": "contains",
+          "value": "effectiveness",
+          "message": "Must include effectiveness measurement planning"
         },
         {
-            "id": "analyze-learning-plan-comprehensive",
-            "runCondition": {
-                "var": "thoroughnessLevel",
-                "equals": "Comprehensive"
-            },
-            "title": "Phase 1: Expert Learning Plan Analysis (Comprehensive)",
-            "prompt": "Conduct thorough analysis of learning architecture for enterprise-grade materials:\n\n**STEP 1: Learning System Architecture**\n\u2022 Map complete learning objective hierarchy with dependencies\n\u2022 Analyze cognitive load and complexity progression\n\u2022 Identify multiple learning pathways and individual differences\n\u2022 Design assessment strategy aligned with learning taxonomies\n\n**STEP 2: Advanced Materials Strategy**\n\u2022 Determine optimal material types for each learning objective\n\u2022 Plan multi-modal approach for different learning styles\n\u2022 Design integration points for spaced repetition and active recall\n\u2022 Identify opportunities for interactive and adaptive elements\n\n**STEP 3: Quality & Effectiveness Framework**\n\u2022 Establish criteria for materials effectiveness measurement\n\u2022 Plan user testing and feedback integration\n\u2022 Design continuous improvement and iteration protocols\n\u2022 Create scalability and maintenance considerations\n\nGoal: Strategic foundation for optimized, enterprise-grade learning ecosystem.",
-            "agentRole": "You are an expert learning systems architect with deep expertise in advanced instructional design and learning optimization. Guide users in creating sophisticated materials that maximize learning effectiveness through evidence-based approaches.",
-            "guidance": [
-                "Apply advanced learning science principles and research",
-                "Focus on long-term effectiveness and optimization",
-                "Design for scalability and continuous improvement"
-            ],
-            "validationCriteria": [
-                {
-                    "type": "contains",
-                    "value": "effectiveness",
-                    "message": "Must include effectiveness measurement planning"
-                },
-                {
-                    "type": "length",
-                    "min": 600,
-                    "max": 1500,
-                    "message": "Analysis should be sophisticated and comprehensive (600-1500 characters)"
-                }
-            ],
-            "hasValidation": true
+          "type": "length",
+          "min": 600,
+          "max": 1500,
+          "message": "Analysis should be sophisticated and comprehensive (600-1500 characters)"
+        }
+      ],
+      "hasValidation": true
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "develop-materials-strategy-quick",
+      "runCondition": {
+        "var": "thoroughnessLevel",
+        "equals": "Quick"
+      },
+      "title": "Phase 2: Efficient Materials Strategy (Quick Start)",
+      "prompt": "Create a focused strategy for essential materials creation:\n\n**STEP 1: Format Selection**\n• Choose 1-2 primary formats based on your learning style\n• Prioritize formats you can create quickly (text-based, simple templates)\n• Plan minimal but consistent formatting approach\n• Focus on immediate usability over visual polish\n\n**STEP 2: Creation Workflow**\n• Design simple templates for study guides and exercises\n• Plan batch creation approach to maximize efficiency\n• Set realistic quality standards (functional over perfect)\n• Create basic organization system for easy access\n\n**STEP 3: Quality Framework**\n• Establish minimum viable product standards\n• Plan quick self-review process\n• Design simple feedback collection for future improvement\n• Focus on completion over perfection\n\nGoal: Practical strategy for rapid materials creation without sacrificing core functionality.",
+      "agentRole": "You are an efficiency expert specializing in rapid content creation. Help users design streamlined approaches that maximize output while maintaining essential quality. Focus on practical, time-saving strategies.",
+      "guidance": [
+        "Emphasize efficiency and speed over perfection",
+        "Choose simple, proven formats that work reliably",
+        "Design for immediate action and quick completion"
+      ],
+      "validationCriteria": [
+        {
+          "type": "contains",
+          "value": "template",
+          "message": "Must include template design for efficiency"
         },
         {
-            "id": "develop-materials-strategy-quick",
-            "runCondition": {
-                "var": "thoroughnessLevel",
-                "equals": "Quick"
-            },
-            "title": "Phase 2: Efficient Materials Strategy (Quick Start)",
-            "prompt": "Create a focused strategy for essential materials creation:\n\n**STEP 1: Format Selection**\n\u2022 Choose 1-2 primary formats based on your learning style\n\u2022 Prioritize formats you can create quickly (text-based, simple templates)\n\u2022 Plan minimal but consistent formatting approach\n\u2022 Focus on immediate usability over visual polish\n\n**STEP 2: Creation Workflow**\n\u2022 Design simple templates for study guides and exercises\n\u2022 Plan batch creation approach to maximize efficiency\n\u2022 Set realistic quality standards (functional over perfect)\n\u2022 Create basic organization system for easy access\n\n**STEP 3: Quality Framework**\n\u2022 Establish minimum viable product standards\n\u2022 Plan quick self-review process\n\u2022 Design simple feedback collection for future improvement\n\u2022 Focus on completion over perfection\n\nGoal: Practical strategy for rapid materials creation without sacrificing core functionality.",
-            "agentRole": "You are an efficiency expert specializing in rapid content creation. Help users design streamlined approaches that maximize output while maintaining essential quality. Focus on practical, time-saving strategies.",
-            "guidance": [
-                "Emphasize efficiency and speed over perfection",
-                "Choose simple, proven formats that work reliably",
-                "Design for immediate action and quick completion"
-            ],
-            "validationCriteria": [
-                {
-                    "type": "contains",
-                    "value": "template",
-                    "message": "Must include template design for efficiency"
-                },
-                {
-                    "type": "length",
-                    "min": 300,
-                    "max": 900,
-                    "message": "Strategy should be focused and actionable (300-900 characters)"
-                }
-            ],
-            "hasValidation": true
+          "type": "length",
+          "min": 300,
+          "max": 900,
+          "message": "Strategy should be focused and actionable (300-900 characters)"
+        }
+      ],
+      "hasValidation": true
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "develop-materials-strategy-comprehensive",
+      "runCondition": {
+        "var": "thoroughnessLevel",
+        "equals": "Comprehensive"
+      },
+      "title": "Phase 2: Advanced Materials Strategy (Comprehensive)",
+      "prompt": "Develop sophisticated strategy for enterprise-grade materials:\n\n**STEP 1: Multi-Modal Format Strategy**\n• Design format variety to engage different learning modes\n• Plan advanced visual elements, interactive components, adaptive features\n• Create sophisticated template system with consistent branding\n• Consider accessibility, mobile optimization, and universal design\n\n**STEP 2: Integration Architecture**\n• Plan seamless connections between all material types\n• Design advanced spaced repetition integration with learning analytics\n• Create sophisticated cross-referencing and linking systems\n• Plan for collaborative features and social learning elements\n\n**STEP 3: Quality Excellence Framework**\n• Establish enterprise-grade quality standards and measurement\n• Design comprehensive user testing and feedback integration\n• Plan continuous optimization based on learning effectiveness data\n• Create scalable maintenance and update protocols\n\nGoal: Strategic foundation for learning materials that optimize effectiveness through sophisticated design.",
+      "agentRole": "You are a learning systems architect with expertise in enterprise-grade materials design. Help users create sophisticated strategies that maximize learning effectiveness through advanced features and optimization.",
+      "guidance": [
+        "Apply advanced instructional design and learning optimization principles",
+        "Focus on long-term effectiveness and continuous improvement",
+        "Design for scalability and enterprise deployment"
+      ],
+      "validationCriteria": [
+        {
+          "type": "contains",
+          "value": "effectiveness",
+          "message": "Must focus on learning effectiveness measurement"
         },
         {
-            "id": "develop-materials-strategy-comprehensive",
-            "runCondition": {
-                "var": "thoroughnessLevel",
-                "equals": "Comprehensive"
-            },
-            "title": "Phase 2: Advanced Materials Strategy (Comprehensive)",
-            "prompt": "Develop sophisticated strategy for enterprise-grade materials:\n\n**STEP 1: Multi-Modal Format Strategy**\n\u2022 Design format variety to engage different learning modes\n\u2022 Plan advanced visual elements, interactive components, adaptive features\n\u2022 Create sophisticated template system with consistent branding\n\u2022 Consider accessibility, mobile optimization, and universal design\n\n**STEP 2: Integration Architecture**\n\u2022 Plan seamless connections between all material types\n\u2022 Design advanced spaced repetition integration with learning analytics\n\u2022 Create sophisticated cross-referencing and linking systems\n\u2022 Plan for collaborative features and social learning elements\n\n**STEP 3: Quality Excellence Framework**\n\u2022 Establish enterprise-grade quality standards and measurement\n\u2022 Design comprehensive user testing and feedback integration\n\u2022 Plan continuous optimization based on learning effectiveness data\n\u2022 Create scalable maintenance and update protocols\n\nGoal: Strategic foundation for learning materials that optimize effectiveness through sophisticated design.",
-            "agentRole": "You are a learning systems architect with expertise in enterprise-grade materials design. Help users create sophisticated strategies that maximize learning effectiveness through advanced features and optimization.",
-            "guidance": [
-                "Apply advanced instructional design and learning optimization principles",
-                "Focus on long-term effectiveness and continuous improvement",
-                "Design for scalability and enterprise deployment"
-            ],
-            "validationCriteria": [
-                {
-                    "type": "contains",
-                    "value": "effectiveness",
-                    "message": "Must focus on learning effectiveness measurement"
-                },
-                {
-                    "type": "length",
-                    "min": 600,
-                    "max": 1400,
-                    "message": "Strategy should be sophisticated and comprehensive (600-1400 characters)"
-                }
-            ],
-            "hasValidation": true
+          "type": "length",
+          "min": 600,
+          "max": 1400,
+          "message": "Strategy should be sophisticated and comprehensive (600-1400 characters)"
         }
-    ]
+      ],
+      "hasValidation": true
+    }
+  ]
 }