@zeyue0329/xiaoma-cli 1.0.49 → 1.6.4

package/src/core/tasks/xiaoma-help/workflow.md

@@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
+
+# Task: XIAOMA Help
+
+## ROUTING RULES
+
+- **Empty `phase` = anytime** — Universal tools work regardless of workflow state
+- **Numbered phases indicate sequence** — Phases like `1-discover` → `2-define` → `3-build` → `4-ship` flow in order (naming varies by module)
+- **Phase with no Required Steps** - If an entire phase has no required, true items, the entire phase is optional. If it is sequentially before another phase, it can be recommended, but always be clear with the use what the true next required item is.
+- **Stay in module** — Guide through the active module's workflow based on phase+sequence ordering
+- **Descriptions contain routing** — Read for alternate paths (e.g., "back to previous if fixes needed")
+- **`required=true` blocks progress** — Required workflows must complete before proceeding to later phases
+- **Artifacts reveal completion** — Search resolved output paths for `outputs` patterns, fuzzy-match found files to workflow rows
+
+## DISPLAY RULES
+
+### Command-Based Workflows
+When `command` field has a value:
+- Show the command prefixed with `/` (e.g., `/xiaoma-xmc-create-prd`)
+
+### Skill-Referenced Workflows
+When `workflow-file` starts with `skill:`:
+- The value is a skill reference (e.g., `skill:xiaoma-quick-dev-new-preview`), NOT a file path
+- Do NOT attempt to resolve or load it as a file path
+- Display using the `command` column value prefixed with `/` (same as command-based workflows)
+
+### Agent-Based Workflows
+When `command` field is empty:
+- User loads agent first via `/agent-command`
+- Then invokes by referencing the `code` field or describing the `name` field
+- Do NOT show a slash command — show the code value and agent load instruction instead
+
+Example presentation for empty command:
+```
+Explain Concept (EC)
+Load: /tech-writer, then ask to "EC about [topic]"
+Agent: Tech Writer
+Description: Create clear technical explanations with examples...
+```
+
+## MODULE DETECTION
+
+- **Empty `module` column** → universal tools (work across all modules)
+- **Named `module`** → module-specific workflows
+
+Detect the active module from conversation context, recent workflows, or user query keywords. If ambiguous, ask the user.
+
+## INPUT ANALYSIS
+
+Determine what was just completed:
+- Explicit completion stated by user
+- Workflow completed in current conversation
+- Artifacts found matching `outputs` patterns
+- If `index.md` exists, read it for additional context
+- If still unclear, ask: "What workflow did you most recently complete?"
+
+## EXECUTION
+
+1. **Load catalog** — Load `{project-root}/_xiaoma/_config/xiaoma-help.csv`
+
+2. **Resolve output locations and config** — Scan each folder under `{project-root}/_xiaoma/` (except `_config`) for `config.yaml`. For each workflow row, resolve its `output-location` variables against that module's config so artifact paths can be searched. Also extract `communication_language` and `project_knowledge` from each scanned module's config.
+
+3. **Ground in project knowledge** — If `project_knowledge` resolves to an existing path, read available documentation files (architecture docs, project overview, tech stack references) for grounding context. Use discovered project facts when composing any project-specific output. Never fabricate project-specific details — if documentation is unavailable, state so.
+
+4. **Detect active module** — Use MODULE DETECTION above
+
+5. **Analyze input** — Task may provide a workflow name/code, conversational phrase, or nothing. Infer what was just completed using INPUT ANALYSIS above.
+
+6. **Present recommendations** — Show next steps based on:
+   - Completed workflows detected
+   - Phase/sequence ordering (ROUTING RULES)
+   - Artifact presence
+
+   **Optional items first** — List optional workflows until a required step is reached
+   **Required items next** — List the next required workflow
+
+   For each item, apply DISPLAY RULES above and include:
+   - Workflow **name**
+   - **Command** OR **Code + Agent load instruction** (per DISPLAY RULES)
+   - **Agent** title and display name from the CSV (e.g., "🎨 Alex (Designer)")
+   - Brief **description**
+
+7. **Additional guidance to convey**:
+   - Present all output in `{communication_language}`
+   - Run each workflow in a **fresh context window**
+   - For **validation workflows**: recommend using a different high-quality LLM if available
+   - For conversational requests: match the user's tone while presenting clearly
+
+8. Return to the calling process after presenting recommendations.

package/src/core/tasks/xiaoma-help/xiaoma-skill-manifest.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+type: skill

package/src/core/tasks/xiaoma-review-adversarial-general/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+---
+name: xiaoma-review-adversarial-general
+description: 'Perform a Cynical Review and produce a findings report. Use when the user requests a critical review of something'
+---
+
+Follow the instructions in [workflow.md](workflow.md).

package/src/core/tasks/xiaoma-review-adversarial-general/workflow.md

@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+# Adversarial Review (General)
+
+**Goal:** Cynically review content and produce findings.
+
+**Your Role:** You are a cynical, jaded reviewer with zero patience for sloppy work. The content was submitted by a clueless weasel and you expect to find problems. Be skeptical of everything. Look for what's missing, not just what's wrong. Use a precise, professional tone — no profanity or personal attacks.
+
+**Inputs:**
+- **content** — Content to review: diff, spec, story, doc, or any artifact
+- **also_consider** (optional) — Areas to keep in mind during review alongside normal adversarial analysis
+
+
+## EXECUTION
+
+### Step 1: Receive Content
+
+- Load the content to review from provided input or context
+- If content to review is empty, ask for clarification and abort
+- Identify content type (diff, branch, uncommitted changes, document, etc.)
+
+### Step 2: Adversarial Analysis
+
+Review with extreme skepticism — assume problems exist. Find at least ten issues to fix or improve in the provided content.
+
+### Step 3: Present Findings
+
+Output findings as a Markdown list (descriptions only).
+
+
+## HALT CONDITIONS
+
+- HALT if zero findings — this is suspicious, re-analyze or ask for guidance
+- HALT if content is empty or unreadable

package/src/core/tasks/xiaoma-review-adversarial-general/xiaoma-skill-manifest.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+type: skill

package/src/core/tasks/xiaoma-review-edge-case-hunter/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+---
+name: xiaoma-review-edge-case-hunter
+description: 'Walk every branching path and boundary condition in content, report only unhandled edge cases. Orthogonal to adversarial review - method-driven not attitude-driven.'
+---
+
+Follow the instructions in [workflow.md](workflow.md).

package/src/core/tasks/xiaoma-review-edge-case-hunter/workflow.md

@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+# Edge Case Hunter Review
+
+**Goal:** You are a pure path tracer. Never comment on whether code is good or bad; only list missing handling.
+When a diff is provided, scan only the diff hunks and list boundaries that are directly reachable from the changed lines and lack an explicit guard in the diff.
+When no diff is provided (full file or function), treat the entire provided content as the scope.
+Ignore the rest of the codebase unless the provided content explicitly references external functions.
+
+**Inputs:**
+- **content** — Content to review: diff, full file, or function
+- **also_consider** (optional) — Areas to keep in mind during review alongside normal edge-case analysis
+
+**MANDATORY: Execute steps in the Execution section IN EXACT ORDER. DO NOT skip steps or change the sequence. When a halt condition triggers, follow its specific instruction exactly. Each action within a step is a REQUIRED action to complete that step.**
+
+**Your method is exhaustive path enumeration — mechanically walk every branch, not hunt by intuition. Report ONLY paths and conditions that lack handling — discard handled ones silently. Do NOT editorialize or add filler — findings only.**
+
+
+## EXECUTION
+
+### Step 1: Receive Content
+
+- Load the content to review strictly from provided input
+- If content is empty, or cannot be decoded as text, return `[{"location":"N/A","trigger_condition":"Input empty or undecodable","guard_snippet":"Provide valid content to review","potential_consequence":"Review skipped — no analysis performed"}]` and stop
+- Identify content type (diff, full file, or function) to determine scope rules
+
+### Step 2: Exhaustive Path Analysis
+
+**Walk every branching path and boundary condition within scope — report only unhandled ones.**
+
+- If `also_consider` input was provided, incorporate those areas into the analysis
+- Walk all branching paths: control flow (conditionals, loops, error handlers, early returns) and domain boundaries (where values, states, or conditions transition). Derive the relevant edge classes from the content itself — don't rely on a fixed checklist. Examples: missing else/default, unguarded inputs, off-by-one loops, arithmetic overflow, implicit type coercion, race conditions, timeout gaps
+- For each path: determine whether the content handles it
+- Collect only the unhandled paths as findings — discard handled ones silently
+
+### Step 3: Validate Completeness
+
+- Revisit every edge class from Step 2 — e.g., missing else/default, null/empty inputs, off-by-one loops, arithmetic overflow, implicit type coercion, race conditions, timeout gaps
+- Add any newly found unhandled paths to findings; discard confirmed-handled ones
+
+### Step 4: Present Findings
+
+Output findings as a JSON array following the Output Format specification exactly.
+
+
+## OUTPUT FORMAT
+
+Return ONLY a valid JSON array of objects. Each object must contain exactly these four fields and nothing else:
+
+```json
+[{
+  "location": "file:start-end (or file:line when single line, or file:hunk when exact line unavailable)",
+  "trigger_condition": "one-line description (max 15 words)",
+  "guard_snippet": "minimal code sketch that closes the gap (single-line escaped string, no raw newlines or unescaped quotes)",
+  "potential_consequence": "what could actually go wrong (max 15 words)"
+}]
+```
+
+No extra text, no explanations, no markdown wrapping. An empty array `[]` is valid when no unhandled paths are found.
+
+
+## HALT CONDITIONS
+
+- If content is empty or cannot be decoded as text, return `[{"location":"N/A","trigger_condition":"Input empty or undecodable","guard_snippet":"Provide valid content to review","potential_consequence":"Review skipped — no analysis performed"}]` and stop

package/src/core/tasks/xiaoma-review-edge-case-hunter/xiaoma-skill-manifest.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+type: skill

package/src/core/tasks/xiaoma-skill-manifest.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+editorial-review-prose.xml:
+  canonicalId: xiaoma-editorial-review-prose
+  type: task
+  description: "Clinical copy-editor that reviews text for communication issues"
+
+editorial-review-structure.xml:
+  canonicalId: xiaoma-editorial-review-structure
+  type: task
+  description: "Structural editor that proposes cuts, reorganization, and simplification while preserving comprehension"
+
+index-docs.xml:
+  canonicalId: xiaoma-index-docs
+  type: task
+  description: "Generates or updates an index.md to reference all docs in the folder"
+
+shard-doc.xml:
+  canonicalId: xiaoma-shard-doc
+  type: task
+  description: "Splits large markdown documents into smaller, organized files based on sections"

package/src/core/tools/shard-doc.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,109 @@
+<tool id="{xiaoma_folder}/core/tasks/shard-doc" name="Shard Document"
+  description="Splits large markdown documents into smaller, organized files based on level 2 (default) sections" webskip="true"
+  standalone="true">
+  <objective>Split large markdown documents into smaller, organized files based on level 2 sections using @kayvan/markdown-tree-parser tool</objective>
+
+  <llm critical="true">
+    <i>MANDATORY: Execute ALL steps in the flow section IN EXACT ORDER</i>
+    <i>DO NOT skip steps or change the sequence</i>
+    <i>HALT immediately when halt-conditions are met</i>
+    <i>Each action xml tag within step xml tag is a REQUIRED action to complete that step</i>
+    <i>Sections outside flow (validation, output, critical-context) provide essential context - review and apply throughout execution</i>
+  </llm>
+
+  <critical-context>
+    <i>Uses `npx @kayvan/markdown-tree-parser` to automatically shard documents by level 2 headings and generate an index</i>
+  </critical-context>
+
+  <flow>
+    <step n="1" title="Get Source Document">
+      <action>Ask user for the source document path if not provided already</action>
+      <action>Verify file exists and is accessible</action>
+      <action>Verify file is markdown format (.md extension)</action>
+      <action if="file not found or not markdown">HALT with error message</action>
+    </step>
+
+    <step n="2" title="Get Destination Folder">
+      <action>Determine default destination: same location as source file, folder named after source file without .md extension</action>
+      <action>Example: /path/to/architecture.md → /path/to/architecture/</action>
+      <action>Ask user for the destination folder path ([y] to confirm use of default: [suggested-path], else enter a new path)</action>
+      <action if="user accepts default">Use the suggested destination path</action>
+      <action if="user provides custom path">Use the custom destination path</action>
+      <action>Verify destination folder exists or can be created</action>
+      <action>Check write permissions for destination</action>
+      <action if="permission denied">HALT with error message</action>
+    </step>
+
+    <step n="3" title="Execute Sharding">
+      <action>Inform user that sharding is beginning</action>
+      <action>Execute command: `npx @kayvan/markdown-tree-parser explode [source-document] [destination-folder]`</action>
+      <action>Capture command output and any errors</action>
+      <action if="command fails">HALT and display error to user</action>
+    </step>
+
+    <step n="4" title="Verify Output">
+      <action>Check that destination folder contains sharded files</action>
+      <action>Verify index.md was created in destination folder</action>
+      <action>Count the number of files created</action>
+      <action if="no files created">HALT with error message</action>
+    </step>
+
+    <step n="5" title="Report Completion">
+      <action>Display completion report to user including:</action>
+      <i>- Source document path and name</i>
+      <i>- Destination folder path</i>
+      <i>- Number of section files created</i>
+      <i>- Confirmation that index.md was created</i>
+      <i>- Any tool output or warnings</i>
+      <action>Inform user that sharding completed successfully</action>
+    </step>
+
+    <step n="6" title="Handle Original Document">
+      <critical>Keeping both the original and sharded versions defeats the purpose of sharding and can cause confusion</critical>
+      <action>Present user with options for the original document:</action>
+
+      <ask>What would you like to do with the original document `[source-document-name]`?
+
+Options:
+[d] Delete - Remove the original (recommended - shards can always be recombined)
+[m] Move to archive - Move original to a backup/archive location
+[k] Keep - Leave original in place (NOT recommended - defeats sharding purpose)
+
+Your choice (d/m/k):</ask>
+
+      <check if="user selects 'd' (delete)">
+        <action>Delete the original source document file</action>
+        <action>Confirm deletion to user: "✓ Original document deleted: [source-document-path]"</action>
+        <note>The document can be reconstructed from shards by concatenating all section files in order</note>
+      </check>
+
+      <check if="user selects 'm' (move)">
+        <action>Determine default archive location: same directory as source, in an "archive" subfolder</action>
+        <action>Example: /path/to/architecture.md → /path/to/archive/architecture.md</action>
+        <ask>Archive location ([y] to use default: [default-archive-path], or provide custom path):</ask>
+        <action if="user accepts default">Use default archive path</action>
+        <action if="user provides custom path">Use custom archive path</action>
+        <action>Create archive directory if it doesn't exist</action>
+        <action>Move original document to archive location</action>
+        <action>Confirm move to user: "✓ Original document moved to: [archive-path]"</action>
+      </check>
+
+      <check if="user selects 'k' (keep)">
+        <action>Display warning to user:</action>
+        <output>⚠️ WARNING: Keeping both original and sharded versions is NOT recommended.
+
+This creates confusion because:
+- The discover_inputs protocol may load the wrong version
+- Updates to one won't reflect in the other
+- You'll have duplicate content taking up space
+
+Consider deleting or archiving the original document.</output>
+        <action>Confirm user choice: "Original document kept at: [source-document-path]"</action>
+      </check>
+    </step>
+  </flow>
+
+  <halt-conditions critical="true">
+    <i>HALT if npx command fails or produces no output files</i>
+  </halt-conditions>
+</tool>

package/src/core/workflows/advanced-elicitation/methods.csv

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+num,category,method_name,description,output_pattern
+1,collaboration,Stakeholder Round Table,Convene multiple personas to contribute diverse perspectives - essential for requirements gathering and finding balanced solutions across competing interests,perspectives → synthesis → alignment
+2,collaboration,Expert Panel Review,Assemble domain experts for deep specialized analysis - ideal when technical depth and peer review quality are needed,expert views → consensus → recommendations
+3,collaboration,Debate Club Showdown,Two personas argue opposing positions while a moderator scores points - great for exploring controversial decisions and finding middle ground,thesis → antithesis → synthesis
+4,collaboration,User Persona Focus Group,Gather your product's user personas to react to proposals and share frustrations - essential for validating features and discovering unmet needs,reactions → concerns → priorities
+5,collaboration,Time Traveler Council,Past-you and future-you advise present-you on decisions - powerful for gaining perspective on long-term consequences vs short-term pressures,past wisdom → present choice → future impact
+6,collaboration,Cross-Functional War Room,Product manager + engineer + designer tackle a problem together - reveals trade-offs between feasibility desirability and viability,constraints → trade-offs → balanced solution
+7,collaboration,Mentor and Apprentice,Senior expert teaches junior while junior asks naive questions - surfaces hidden assumptions through teaching,explanation → questions → deeper understanding
+8,collaboration,Good Cop Bad Cop,Supportive persona and critical persona alternate - finds both strengths to build on and weaknesses to address,encouragement → criticism → balanced view
+9,collaboration,Improv Yes-And,Multiple personas build on each other's ideas without blocking - generates unexpected creative directions through collaborative building,idea → build → build → surprising result
+10,collaboration,Customer Support Theater,Angry customer and support rep roleplay to find pain points - reveals real user frustrations and service gaps,complaint → investigation → resolution → prevention
+11,advanced,Tree of Thoughts,Explore multiple reasoning paths simultaneously then evaluate and select the best - perfect for complex problems with multiple valid approaches,paths → evaluation → selection
+12,advanced,Graph of Thoughts,Model reasoning as an interconnected network of ideas to reveal hidden relationships - ideal for systems thinking and discovering emergent patterns,nodes → connections → patterns
+13,advanced,Thread of Thought,Maintain coherent reasoning across long contexts by weaving a continuous narrative thread - essential for RAG systems and maintaining consistency,context → thread → synthesis
+14,advanced,Self-Consistency Validation,Generate multiple independent approaches then compare for consistency - crucial for high-stakes decisions where verification matters,approaches → comparison → consensus
+15,advanced,Meta-Prompting Analysis,Step back to analyze the approach structure and methodology itself - valuable for optimizing prompts and improving problem-solving,current → analysis → optimization
+16,advanced,Reasoning via Planning,Build a reasoning tree guided by world models and goal states - excellent for strategic planning and sequential decision-making,model → planning → strategy
+17,competitive,Red Team vs Blue Team,Adversarial attack-defend analysis to find vulnerabilities - critical for security testing and building robust solutions,defense → attack → hardening
+18,competitive,Shark Tank Pitch,Entrepreneur pitches to skeptical investors who poke holes - stress-tests business viability and forces clarity on value proposition,pitch → challenges → refinement
+19,competitive,Code Review Gauntlet,Senior devs with different philosophies review the same code - surfaces style debates and finds consensus on best practices,reviews → debates → standards
+20,technical,Architecture Decision Records,Multiple architect personas propose and debate architectural choices with explicit trade-offs - ensures decisions are well-reasoned and documented,options → trade-offs → decision → rationale
+21,technical,Rubber Duck Debugging Evolved,Explain your code to progressively more technical ducks until you find the bug - forces clarity at multiple abstraction levels,simple → detailed → technical → aha
+22,technical,Algorithm Olympics,Multiple approaches compete on the same problem with benchmarks - finds optimal solution through direct comparison,implementations → benchmarks → winner
+23,technical,Security Audit Personas,Hacker + defender + auditor examine system from different threat models - comprehensive security review from multiple angles,vulnerabilities → defenses → compliance
+24,technical,Performance Profiler Panel,Database expert + frontend specialist + DevOps engineer diagnose slowness - finds bottlenecks across the full stack,symptoms → analysis → optimizations
+25,creative,SCAMPER Method,Apply seven creativity lenses (Substitute/Combine/Adapt/Modify/Put/Eliminate/Reverse) - systematic ideation for product innovation,S→C→A→M→P→E→R
+26,creative,Reverse Engineering,Work backwards from desired outcome to find implementation path - powerful for goal achievement and understanding endpoints,end state → steps backward → path forward
+27,creative,What If Scenarios,Explore alternative realities to understand possibilities and implications - valuable for contingency planning and exploration,scenarios → implications → insights
+28,creative,Random Input Stimulus,Inject unrelated concepts to spark unexpected connections - breaks creative blocks through forced lateral thinking,random word → associations → novel ideas
+29,creative,Exquisite Corpse Brainstorm,Each persona adds to the idea seeing only the previous contribution - generates surprising combinations through constrained collaboration,contribution → handoff → contribution → surprise
+30,creative,Genre Mashup,Combine two unrelated domains to find fresh approaches - innovation through unexpected cross-pollination,domain A + domain B → hybrid insights
+31,research,Literature Review Personas,Optimist researcher + skeptic researcher + synthesizer review sources - balanced assessment of evidence quality,sources → critiques → synthesis
+32,research,Thesis Defense Simulation,Student defends hypothesis against committee with different concerns - stress-tests research methodology and conclusions,thesis → challenges → defense → refinements
+33,research,Comparative Analysis Matrix,Multiple analysts evaluate options against weighted criteria - structured decision-making with explicit scoring,options → criteria → scores → recommendation
+34,risk,Pre-mortem Analysis,Imagine future failure then work backwards to prevent it - powerful technique for risk mitigation before major launches,failure scenario → causes → prevention
+35,risk,Failure Mode Analysis,Systematically explore how each component could fail - critical for reliability engineering and safety-critical systems,components → failures → prevention
+36,risk,Challenge from Critical Perspective,Play devil's advocate to stress-test ideas and find weaknesses - essential for overcoming groupthink,assumptions → challenges → strengthening
+37,risk,Identify Potential Risks,Brainstorm what could go wrong across all categories - fundamental for project planning and deployment preparation,categories → risks → mitigations
+38,risk,Chaos Monkey Scenarios,Deliberately break things to test resilience and recovery - ensures systems handle failures gracefully,break → observe → harden
+39,core,First Principles Analysis,Strip away assumptions to rebuild from fundamental truths - breakthrough technique for innovation and solving impossible problems,assumptions → truths → new approach
+40,core,5 Whys Deep Dive,Repeatedly ask why to drill down to root causes - simple but powerful for understanding failures,why chain → root cause → solution
+41,core,Socratic Questioning,Use targeted questions to reveal hidden assumptions and guide discovery - excellent for teaching and self-discovery,questions → revelations → understanding
+42,core,Critique and Refine,Systematic review to identify strengths and weaknesses then improve - standard quality check for drafts,strengths/weaknesses → improvements → refined
+43,core,Explain Reasoning,Walk through step-by-step thinking to show how conclusions were reached - crucial for transparency,steps → logic → conclusion
+44,core,Expand or Contract for Audience,Dynamically adjust detail level and technical depth for target audience - matches content to reader capabilities,audience → adjustments → refined content
+45,learning,Feynman Technique,Explain complex concepts simply as if teaching a child - the ultimate test of true understanding,complex → simple → gaps → mastery
+46,learning,Active Recall Testing,Test understanding without references to verify true knowledge - essential for identifying gaps,test → gaps → reinforcement
+47,philosophical,Occam's Razor Application,Find the simplest sufficient explanation by eliminating unnecessary complexity - essential for debugging,options → simplification → selection
+48,philosophical,Trolley Problem Variations,Explore ethical trade-offs through moral dilemmas - valuable for understanding values and difficult decisions,dilemma → analysis → decision
+49,retrospective,Hindsight Reflection,Imagine looking back from the future to gain perspective - powerful for project reviews,future view → insights → application
+50,retrospective,Lessons Learned Extraction,Systematically identify key takeaways and actionable improvements - essential for continuous improvement,experience → lessons → actions

package/src/core/workflows/advanced-elicitation/workflow.md

@@ -0,0 +1,138 @@
+---
+name: advanced-elicitation
+description: 'Push the LLM to reconsider refine and improve its recent output. Use when the user asks for advanced elicitation.'
+methods: '{project-root}/_xiaoma/core/workflows/advanced-elicitation/methods.csv'
+agent_party: '{project-root}/_xiaoma/_config/agent-manifest.csv'
+---
+
+# Advanced Elicitation Workflow
+
+**Goal:** Push the LLM to reconsider, refine, and improve its recent output. Use when the user asks for advanced elicitation.
+
+---
+
+## CRITICAL LLM INSTRUCTIONS
+
+- **MANDATORY:** Execute ALL steps in the flow section IN EXACT ORDER
+- DO NOT skip steps or change the sequence
+- HALT immediately when halt-conditions are met
+- Each action within a step is a REQUIRED action to complete that step
+- Sections outside flow (validation, output, critical-context) provide essential context - review and apply throughout execution
+- **YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT in your Agent communication style with the `communication_language`**
+
+---
+
+## INTEGRATION (When Called from Workflow)
+
+When called during template workflow processing:
+
+1. Receive or review the current section content that was just generated
+2. Apply elicitation methods iteratively to enhance that specific content
+3. Return the enhanced version back when user selects 'x' to proceed and return back
+4. The enhanced content replaces the original section content in the output document
+
+---
+
+## FLOW
+
+### Step 1: Method Registry Loading
+
+**Action:** Load and read `{methods}` and `{agent_party}`
+
+#### CSV Structure
+
+- **category:** Method grouping (core, structural, risk, etc.)
+- **method_name:** Display name for the method
+- **description:** Rich explanation of what the method does, when to use it, and why it's valuable
+- **output_pattern:** Flexible flow guide using arrows (e.g., "analysis -> insights -> action")
+
+#### Context Analysis
+
+- Use conversation history
+- Analyze: content type, complexity, stakeholder needs, risk level, and creative potential
+
+#### Smart Selection
+
+1. Analyze context: Content type, complexity, stakeholder needs, risk level, creative potential
+2. Parse descriptions: Understand each method's purpose from the rich descriptions in CSV
+3. Select 5 methods: Choose methods that best match the context based on their descriptions
+4. Balance approach: Include mix of foundational and specialized techniques as appropriate
+
+---
+
+### Step 2: Present Options and Handle Responses
+
+#### Display Format
+
+```
+**Advanced Elicitation Options**
+_If party mode is active, agents will join in._
+Choose a number (1-5), [r] to Reshuffle, [a] List All, or [x] to Proceed:
+
+1. [Method Name]
+2. [Method Name]
+3. [Method Name]
+4. [Method Name]
+5. [Method Name]
+r. Reshuffle the list with 5 new options
+a. List all methods with descriptions
+x. Proceed / No Further Actions
+```
+
+#### Response Handling
+
+**Case 1-5 (User selects a numbered method):**
+
+- Execute the selected method using its description from the CSV
+- Adapt the method's complexity and output format based on the current context
+- Apply the method creatively to the current section content being enhanced
+- Display the enhanced version showing what the method revealed or improved
+- **CRITICAL:** Ask the user if they would like to apply the changes to the doc (y/n/other) and HALT to await response.
+- **CRITICAL:** ONLY if Yes, apply the changes. IF No, discard your memory of the proposed changes. If any other reply, try best to follow the instructions given by the user.
+- **CRITICAL:** Re-present the same 1-5,r,x prompt to allow additional elicitations
+
+**Case r (Reshuffle):**
+
+- Select 5 random methods from methods.csv, present new list with same prompt format
+- When selecting, try to think and pick a diverse set of methods covering different categories and approaches, with 1 and 2 being potentially the most useful for the document or section being discovered
+
+**Case x (Proceed):**
+
+- Complete elicitation and proceed
+- Return the fully enhanced content back to create-doc.md
+- The enhanced content becomes the final version for that section
+- Signal completion back to create-doc.md to continue with next section
+
+**Case a (List All):**
+
+- List all methods with their descriptions from the CSV in a compact table
+- Allow user to select any method by name or number from the full list
+- After selection, execute the method as described in the Case 1-5 above
+
+**Case: Direct Feedback:**
+
+- Apply changes to current section content and re-present choices
+
+**Case: Multiple Numbers:**
+
+- Execute methods in sequence on the content, then re-offer choices
+
+---
+
+### Step 3: Execution Guidelines
+
+- **Method execution:** Use the description from CSV to understand and apply each method
+- **Output pattern:** Use the pattern as a flexible guide (e.g., "paths -> evaluation -> selection")
+- **Dynamic adaptation:** Adjust complexity based on content needs (simple to sophisticated)
+- **Creative application:** Interpret methods flexibly based on context while maintaining pattern consistency
+- Focus on actionable insights
+- **Stay relevant:** Tie elicitation to specific content being analyzed (the current section from the document being created unless user indicates otherwise)
+- **Identify personas:** For single or multi-persona methods, clearly identify viewpoints, and use party members if available in memory already
+- **Critical loop behavior:** Always re-offer the 1-5,r,a,x choices after each method execution
+- Continue until user selects 'x' to proceed with enhanced content, confirm or ask the user what should be accepted from the session
+- Each method application builds upon previous enhancements
+- **Content preservation:** Track all enhancements made during elicitation
+- **Iterative enhancement:** Each selected method (1-5) should:
+  1. Apply to the current enhanced version of the content
+  2. Show the improvements made
+  3. Return to the prompt for additional elicitations or completion