gsdd-cli 0.18.5 → 0.19.0

package/agents/DISTILLATION.md

@@ -1,421 +1,421 @@
-# GSDD Role Distillation Ledger
-
-Evidence map from each of the 10 canonical GSDD roles to their GSD sources, with keep/strip/why rationale. This ledger documents why each role exists in its current form and what GSD content was distilled or merged.
-
----
-
-## 1. Mapper
-
-**Canonical role:** `agents/mapper.md`
-
-**GSD source:** `agents/_archive/gsd-codebase-mapper.md`
-
-**Merger type:** Kept-as-is (function scope preserved, output contract simplified)
-
-**Kept from GSD:**
-- Mandatory initial-read discipline for context files
-- 4 focus areas (tech, arch, quality, concerns)
-- Output contract with artifact names and downstream consumers
-- Core algorithm: parse → explore → fill template → write → confirm
-
-**Stripped from GSD:**
-- Multi-file codebase output reduced to 4-file standard (see D1)
-- Validator-pass patterns (GSDD trusts agent reads, not file validation)
-
-**Gained in GSDD:**
-- Explicit "Downstream Consumers" section (shows who uses mapper output)
-- Clear guidance on prescriptive vs. descriptive output (helps agents write better code)
-
-**Rationale:** Mapper is the lowest-level, most stable role. Its core job (explore + document) hasn't changed, but the output set shrank from 7 files to 4 files per D1 (lean context decision). The agent role contract itself needed no substantive changes.
-
----
-
-## 2. Researcher
-
-**Canonical role:** `agents/researcher.md`
-
-**GSD sources:** `agents/_archive/gsd-project-researcher.md` + `agents/_archive/gsd-phase-researcher.md` (merged)
-
-**Merger type:** Merged (same algorithm, different scope parameter)
-
-**Kept from GSD:**
-- Mandatory initial-read discipline
-- Research scope (project vs. phase)
-- Research mode (ecosystem, feasibility, comparison)
-- Core algorithm: receive scope → identify domains → execute tool hierarchy → verify → write → return structured result
-- Quality guarantees (training data = hypothesis, honest reporting, investigation not confirmation, confidence levels on every finding)
-- Research pitfalls and prevention strategies
-
-**Stripped from GSD:**
-- Separate role contracts for project-researcher and phase-researcher (merged into one with scope parameter)
-- Tool-specific shell commands (kept portable tool contracts instead)
-
-**Gained in GSDD:**
-- Explicit "Scope" table showing scope × trigger × focus × output location
-- Clear statement: "Same algorithm, different scope. The scope is a context input, not a different role."
-
-**Rationale:** The GSD original had two roles (project and phase researcher) that followed the identical algorithm but with a scope parameter. GSDD merged them into one canonical role taking scope as input, reducing the role count from 11 to 9 (later 10 with approach-explorer in D29) while preserving all leverage. This is the clean merger mentioned in D2.
-
----
-
-## 3. Synthesizer
-
-**Canonical role:** `agents/synthesizer.md`
-
-**GSD source:** `agents/_archive/gsd-research-synthesizer.md` (with recovery hardening from PR #15)
-
-**Merger type:** Kept-as-is (hardened in 2026-03-13)
-
-**Kept from GSD:**
-- Mandatory initial-read discipline
-- Input contract: all 4 research files (STACK, FEATURES, ARCHITECTURE, PITFALLS)
-- Output contract: SUMMARY.md with executive summary, key findings, roadmap implications, confidence/gaps
-- Downstream consumer (roadmapper) and what it needs
-- 6-step execution flow: read → synthesize → extract → derive → assess → write
-
-**Stripped from GSD:**
-- Conditional skip logic (kept mandatory synthesizer per D5 original decision)
-- Vendor-specific output formatting
-
-**Gained in GSDD (PR #15 hardening):**
-- Explicit required files list with blocked-return pattern (do not guess from partial context, return blocked status naming missing file)
-- "Be opinionated" guidance to roadmapper
-- Stronger structured-return contract
-
-**Rationale:** Synthesizer is a thin single-step role with no merge or extraction needed. It was hardened in PR #15 to restore explicit structure and completion discipline, but the core function and leverage remained unchanged from GSD.
-
----
-
-## 4. Planner
-
-**Canonical role:** `agents/planner.md`
-
-**GSD sources:** `agents/_archive/gsd-planner.md` + `agents/_archive/gsd-plan-checker.md` (merged)
-
-**Merger type:** Merged (orchestration ownership transferred to native adapters)
-
-**Kept from GSD:**
-- Mandatory initial-read discipline
-- Phase goal decomposition and dependency graphs
-- Goal-backward verification (must-haves, artifacts, key links)
-- Planner responsibility and scope
-- Input contract (SPEC, ROADMAP, codebase context, prior phase artifacts)
-- Output contract (PLAN.md with frontmatter, objective, context references, typed tasks)
-
-**Stripped from GSD:**
-- Separate plan-checker role (now a delegate at `distilled/templates/delegates/plan-checker.md`)
-- GSD's native 3-cycle verification loop (embedded in planner) → moved to native adapter surfaces (Claude skill, OpenCode command, Codex agent)
-- Vendor-specific fresh-context orchestration logic
-
-**Gained in GSDD:**
-- Explicit scope boundary: "plan-scoped, does not own verification or milestone audit"
-- Goal-backward section with 4 clear questions
-- Planning process section with concrete steps
-- Reference to plan-checker delegate for fresh-context review
-- Reduced-assurance fallback mode description (when no independent checker runs)
-
-**Rationale:** GSD's plan-checker was a separate role running a 3-cycle revision loop. GSDD merged planner and plan-checker into a single portable contract, but preserved the adversarial review concept through native adapter surfaces. The portable workflow describes the reduced-assurance fallback. This is the high-impact merger from D2 with full tradeoff documentation.
-
----
-
-## 5. Roadmapper
-
-**Canonical role:** `agents/roadmapper.md`
-
-**GSD source:** `agents/_archive/gsd-roadmapper.md` (with recovery hardening from PR #15)
-
-**Merger type:** Kept-as-is (hardened in 2026-03-13)
-
-**Kept from GSD:**
-- Mandatory initial-read discipline
-- Bounded section structure (phases, requirements, success criteria, coverage validation)
-- Explicit coverage validation
-- Parse-critical artifact contract
-- Structured return modes
-- Checklist-driven completion
-
-**Stripped from GSD:**
-- Template-path references (output lives in `.planning/ROADMAP.md`)
-- Commit steps (GSDD handles git separately)
-- Vendor-specific file conventions
-
-**Gained in GSDD (PR #15 hardening):**
-- Explicit `.planning/ROADMAP.md` ownership contract
-- Explicit `[ ]` / `[-]` / `[x]` status grammar
-- Concrete `ROADMAP CREATED` artifact example
-- Hard boundary: "this role does not settle the separate ROADMAP/STATE lifecycle seam"
-
-**Rationale:** Roadmapper was over-distilled in the initial extraction; PR #15 recovered visible structure and completion discipline. The core role and leverage were intact; hardening just restored the guardrails that improve compliance.
-
----
-
-## 6. Executor
-
-**Canonical role:** `agents/executor.md`
-
-**GSD source:** `agents/_archive/gsd-executor.md` (with substantial hardening from PR #16)
-
-**Merger type:** Kept-as-is (hardened significantly in 2026-03-13)
-
-**Kept from GSD:**
-- Plan-scoped execution discipline
-- Task implementation and deviation handling
-- Git action recording without repo-specific naming assumptions
-- Checkpoint protocol
-- Completion summary
-- State update responsibility
-
-**Stripped from GSD:**
-- Bash recipe patterns and shell-specific guidance
-- Tool-specific directory naming conventions
-
-**Gained in GSDD (PR #16 hardening):**
-- Explicit scope boundary with 6 things executor does NOT own
-- Clearer deviation rules with priority order (auto-fix bugs first)
-- Success criteria confirmation requirement
-- Verify quality checks now live inside task_completeness (runnable, fast, ordered)
-- Stronger commitment to documented deviations
-
-**Rationale:** Executor is the most complex role, with the broadest deviation surface. PR #16 audit recovered substantive guardrails: explicit scope boundaries, rule priority, and verification discipline. The ~150-line executor contract expanded to ~400 lines because the detail prevents misalignment, not because the job changed.
-
----
-
-## 7. Verifier
-
-**Canonical role:** `agents/verifier.md`
-
-**GSD source:** `agents/_archive/gsd-verifier.md` (with selective hardening from D2)
-
-**Merger type:** Kept-as-is (scope preserved; cross-phase audit extracted separately)
-
-**Kept from GSD:**
-- Phase-level goal-backward verification
-- Exists/Substantive/Wired gate
-- Anti-pattern scan
-- Output contract with compact base fields (phase, verified, status, score)
-- Verification-report structure
-
-**Stripped from GSD:**
-- Cross-phase integration audit scope (extracted as separate role + workflow)
-- GSD's narrative all-encompassing verification
-
-**Gained in GSDD:**
-- Richer structured verifier findings (re_verification, gaps, human_verification) when material
-- Explicit boundaries: "phase-scoped only, cross-phase integration is a separate concern"
-- D2 cross-reference: why integration-checker exists as a separate role
-
-**Rationale:** Verifier's phase-level job is unchanged. The extraction of integration-checker as a separate milestone surface (D2, PR #12) made verifier smaller and clearer. Phase verification and milestone integration audit are now distinct concerns with explicit handoff points.
-
----
-
-## 8. Integration-Checker
-
-**Canonical role:** `agents/integration-checker.md`
-
-**GSD source:** `agents/_archive/gsd-integration-checker.md` (with structural recovery in PR #12 and systemic hardening in PR #15)
-
-**Merger type:** Extracted as standalone role (cross-phase scope differs structurally from phase verification)
-
-**Kept from GSD:**
-- Mandatory initial-read discipline
-- Cross-phase wiring verification (exports → imports, APIs → consumers, forms → handlers, data → display)
-- E2E flow tracing
-- Typed structured return
-- Checklist-driven completion
-
-**Stripped from GSD (intentional):**
-- Framework-specific Bash recipes
-- Hardcoded path assumptions
-- File-extension-specific grep flags
-- Tool-specific details that don't survive vendor-agnostic distillation
-
-**Gained in GSDD:**
-- PR #12: explicit section boundaries, stronger structured output, cleaner split between role contract and milestone workflow
-- PR #15: recovered compliance guardrails, restored mandatory read enforcement, explicit auth-protection verification
-- D2 reference: structural difference from phase verifier
-- New in D21 (PR #35): Step 4a matrix-driven auth verification (if AUTH_MATRIX.md exists)
-
-**Rationale:** GSD's integration-checker was a separate surface but lived in the shadows of the main role contracts. PR #12 extracted it fully; PR #15 recovered its substantive guardrails. The role is different from verifier because it owns milestone scope (all-phase wiring) vs. phase scope (phase goal). This is the cleanest separation in D2.
-
----
-
-## 9. Debugger
-
-**Canonical role:** `agents/debugger.md`
-
-**GSD source:** `agents/_archive/gsd-debugger.md` (no changes)
-
-**Merger type:** Kept-as-is (unchanged)
-
-**Kept from GSD:**
-- Systematic debugging methodology
-- Hypothesis formulation and testing
-- State persistence across context resets
-- Structured checkpoint protocol
-- Deviation handling
-
-**Stripped from GSD:** (nothing significant)
-- Minor tool path references
-
-**Gained in GSDD:** (nothing)
-- The role is kept as-is for compatibility
-
-**Rationale:** Debugger is a standalone utility role with no dependencies on other roles. It was preserved exactly as-is from GSD because it works and has no vendor lock-in. It's used ad-hoc when agents encounter failures, not as part of the main workflow pipeline.
-
----
-
-## 10. Approach-Explorer
-
-**Canonical role:** `agents/approach-explorer.md`
-
-**GSD sources:** `workflows/discuss-phase.md` + `workflows/list-phase-assumptions.md` + `workflows/discovery-phase.md` (merged into new role)
-
-**Merger type:** New role from 2 GSD sources (discuss-phase + list-phase-assumptions) with thematic input from discovery-phase
-
-**Kept from GSD:**
-- Gray area identification with 5 domain types (SEE/CALL/RUN/READ/ORGANIZED) from discuss-phase
-- Scope guardrail: phase boundary is fixed, deferred ideas captured not acted on
-- 5-dimension assumption surfacing (technical approach, implementation order, scope boundaries, risks, dependencies) with confidence levels from list-phase-assumptions
-- Deferred ideas capture from discuss-phase
-- Adaptive area-by-area deep questioning from discuss-phase (GSD used 4-question batches; GSDD uses adaptive convergence)
-
-Note: `discovery-phase.md` contributed the concept of pre-planning research but the mechanism is entirely different — GSD used 3-level depth workflows (Quick/Standard/Deep) as a separate invocation; GSDD uses per-gray-area research subagents embedded in the plan workflow. This is thematic inspiration, not a structural merger.
-
-**Stripped from GSD:**
-- `gsd-tools.cjs` dependencies and STATE.md updates
-- Vendor-specific commit steps, path conventions, and "Claude" references
-- CONTEXT.md output format (replaced with structured APPROACH.md)
-- Separate workflow invocation (absorbed into plan workflow as inline + research subagent hybrid)
-- Rigid 4-question batched loop (replaced with adaptive questioning until decision converges)
-
-**Gained in GSDD:**
-- XML semantic structure matching planner pattern (`<role>`, `<algorithm>`, `<examples>`, etc.)
-- 3 few-shot conversation examples (taste decision, technical decision, hybrid + delegation)
-- Gray area classification: taste (ask directly), technical (research first), hybrid (both)
-- Pre-question research per gray area via isolated research subagents returning compressed summaries
-- Self-check quality gate before writing APPROACH.md
-- Intermediate decision persistence (protect against context limits)
-- JIT context loading with extraction guidance (read ONLY locked decisions from SPEC, ONLY phase goal from ROADMAP)
-- Structured approach comparison with trade-offs
-- File persistence to `{padded_phase}-APPROACH.md` using dedicated template
-- Plan-checker integration via new `approach_alignment` verification dimension
-- Config toggle (`workflow.discuss: true|false`) for optional skip
-- Downstream consumer contract: planner reads locked decisions, plan-checker verifies alignment
-- "Agent's Discretion" explicit marking for areas where user delegates choice (vendor-neutral)
-- Hybrid architecture: conversation inline (main context) + research in subagents. Native agent kept as optimization.
-
-**Rationale:** GSDD's initial distillation dropped GSD's discuss-phase and list-phase-assumptions entirely, removing genuine leverage: the planner converges on a single approach without user input, explores no alternatives, and surfaces no assumptions. The approach explorer recovers this phase-level user alignment by combining GSD's discuss-phase interaction pattern with comparative research. Ground-up rewrite (D29) applied 5 external resources on context engineering, meta-prompting, and agent skill design to produce a prompt-engineered role contract with proper XML structure, examples, adaptive conversation, and hybrid research isolation.
-
----
-
-## Summary: Merger Table (from D2)
-
-| Canonical role | Absorbs from GSD | Merger criteria |
-|---|---|---|
-| `mapper.md` | `gsd-codebase-mapper.md` | Kept-as-is; output set changed per D1 (7 → 4 files) |
-| `researcher.md` | `gsd-project-researcher.md` + `gsd-phase-researcher.md` | Scope parameter instead of separate role |
-| `synthesizer.md` | `gsd-research-synthesizer.md` | Kept-as-is; hardened in PR #15 |
-| `planner.md` | `gsd-planner.md` + `gsd-plan-checker.md` | Orchestration ownership moved to native adapters; portable checker-delegate created |
-| `roadmapper.md` | `gsd-roadmapper.md` | Kept-as-is; hardened in PR #15 |
-| `executor.md` | `gsd-executor.md` | Kept-as-is; heavily hardened in PR #16 |
-| `verifier.md` | `gsd-verifier.md` | Kept-as-is; cross-phase audit extracted to integration-checker |
-| `integration-checker.md` | `gsd-integration-checker.md` | Extracted as standalone; recovered in PR #12, hardened in PR #15 |
-| `debugger.md` | `gsd-debugger.md` | Kept-as-is; no changes |
-| `approach-explorer.md` | `discuss-phase.md` + `list-phase-assumptions.md` + `discovery-phase.md` | New role from 3 GSD workflow sources |
-
-**Result:** 11 GSD roles → 10 GSDD canonical roles (2 mergers: researcher, planner). 1 extraction: integration-checker moved from embedded to standalone. 1 addition: approach-explorer recovers discuss-phase leverage with research enhancement. Total leverage preserved and extended.
-
----
-
-## Evidence and Context
-
-- GSD sources: `agents/_archive/gsd-*.md`
-- GSDD canonical roles: `agents/*.md` (all except `_archive/`)
-- Design decisions: `distilled/DESIGN.md` (D1, D2)
-- PR history:
-  - PR #9: Delegate extraction
-  - PR #12: Integration-checker extraction and lifecycle contract seam
-  - PR #14-17: Systemic role-contract hardening and leverage recovery
-  - PR #35: OWASP authorization matrix integration into integration-checker
-
----
-
-## Maintenance
-
-This ledger is updated when:
-
-1. A canonical role contract changes significantly (update the "Kept"/"Stripped"/"Gained" sections)
-2. A GSD role is merged into or extracted from a canonical role (update the merger table)
-3. New evidence surfaces that changes the distillation rationale (update with citation)
-
-Do not add speculative content. Every entry must reference actual source files and PRs that contain evidence.
-
----
-
-## Role Contract Design Principles
-
-Cross-source best practices applied to GSDD role contracts, audited against 6 external resources. These principles govern how role contracts should be written and revised. Ranked by impact.
-
-> **Source note:** "Anthropic CE" in this section refers to Anthropic's "Building effective agents" (Dec 2024) for orchestration and sub-agent patterns, and LangChain's "Context Engineering for Agents" (2025) for Write/Select/Compress/Isolate context management patterns. They are cited separately where attribution is precise.
-
-### Architecture-Level (highest leverage)
-
-| Principle | What It Means | Source | GSDD Implementation |
-|-----------|--------------|--------|---------------------|
-| **Context isolation** | Research and heavy reads go in subagents; only compressed summaries enter the main context | Anthropic "Building effective agents" (Dec 2024): orchestrator-worker pattern — sub-agents do deep technical work and return condensed summaries | Approach explorer research subagents return ~1000-token summaries; plan-checker runs in fresh context |
-| **JIT context loading** | Never say "read everything." Specify what to extract from each file | LangChain "Context Engineering for Agents" (2025): Select step of Write/Select/Compress/Isolate — load only the specific content needed, not full files | `<input_contract>` with extraction guidance: "From SPEC.md read ONLY locked decisions" |
-| **Intermediate persistence** | For long interactions, write confirmed state to disk incrementally | Anthropic BEA: agent memory outside context window. LangChain CE: Write pattern — confirmed state persisted to disk | Approach explorer writes decisions to disk as they're confirmed during conversation |
-| **Progressive disclosure** | Don't front-load all context; let agents discover incrementally | LangChain CE: Compress/Isolate patterns — agents assemble understanding incrementally rather than loading everything upfront | Gray areas presented individually; research loaded per area on demand |
-
-### Prompt Structure (medium leverage)
-
-| Principle | What It Means | Source | GSDD Implementation |
-|-----------|--------------|--------|---------------------|
-| **XML semantic structure** | Use XML tags to separate role, instructions, examples, inputs, outputs, anti-patterns | Anthropic Claude: "XML tags help Claude parse complex prompts unambiguously" | All roles use `<role>`, most use `<quality_guarantees>`, `<anti_patterns>`. Approach-explorer adds `<algorithm>`, `<examples>`, `<scope_guardrail>` |
-| **Anti-patterns early** | Place "don't do this" instructions near the top, after role definition | Anthropic Claude prompting docs: critical information at the beginning receives more attention (primacy effect in long-context prompts) | `<anti_patterns>` placed immediately after `<role>` in all roles that have them |
-| **Few-shot examples** | Show the pattern of interaction, not just output format | Anthropic Claude: "3-5 examples for best results." Examples in `<example>` tags | Approach-explorer: 3 examples. Other roles use inline format examples within algorithm sections |
-| **Self-check before output** | Run an explicit checklist before producing the final artifact | OpenAI: "verification loops." Anthropic Claude: "Ask Claude to self-check" | Approach-explorer step 7; planner `<plan_self_check>`; executor completion verification |
-| **Scope boundaries with heuristics** | Don't just list in/out of scope — give the agent a judgment rule | Novel, validated in approach-explorer | "Does this clarify implementation within the phase, or does it add a capability that could be its own phase?" |
-
-### Language & Tone (lower leverage, still matters)
-
-| Principle | What It Means | Source | GSDD Implementation |
-|-----------|--------------|--------|---------------------|
-| **Authority language: intentional leverage** | Anthropic Claude warns "CRITICAL:" can overtrigger on newer models. GSDD decision: **keep CRITICAL: for mandatory initial-read** — a genuine compliance-critical instruction where skipping causes cascading failures. Emphasis markers work when rare and specific (signal-to-noise principle: one CRITICAL: in a role contract is a load-bearing gate; ten would be noise). Use normal language for algorithm steps, scope guidance, and quality rules. | Anthropic Claude prompting docs (overtriggering caution) + technical writing signal-to-noise principle. GSDD applies the caution selectively: only compliance-critical context gates use CRITICAL: | `CRITICAL: Mandatory initial read` kept in all 7 roles. `NEVER` kept for security (mapper secret protection). Normal language used for algorithm steps, scope guidance, and quality rules |
-| **Tell what to do, not just what not to do** | Anti-patterns alone are insufficient; pair with positive instructions | Anthropic Claude: "Tell Claude what to do instead of what not to do" | Every role has both `<anti_patterns>` AND positive algorithm/process sections |
-| **Context for instructions** | Explain WHY a rule exists so the agent can generalize | Anthropic Claude: "Providing context or motivation behind your instructions helps Claude better understand your goals" | Research quality rules explain WHY: "Training data is a hypothesis. Verify before asserting." |
-
-### Novel Patterns (not from any source)
-
-These patterns emerged from GSDD's specific needs and were validated through implementation:
-
-| Pattern | What It Does | Where Used |
-|---------|-------------|------------|
-| **Taste/Technical/Hybrid classification** | Adapts research depth to decision type; taste needs no research, technical does | Approach-explorer step 2 |
-| **Research quality rules** | "One viable option is valid" / "Don't manufacture trade-offs" | Approach-explorer step 3 |
-| **5-dimension assumption surfacing** | Forces transparency about inferences vs. confirmed facts, with confidence levels | Approach-explorer step 6 |
-| **Agent's Discretion delegation** | User can explicitly say "you decide" — reduces fatigue on low-stakes choices | Approach-explorer step 4, planner `<approach_decisions>` |
-| **Domain classification table** | SEE/CALL/RUN/READ/ORGANIZED determines gray area focus per phase type | Approach-explorer step 2 |
-| **Degrees of freedom mapping** | Taste=high freedom, technical=low freedom (research-constrained). GSDD-originated: applies statistical degrees-of-freedom concept to prompt design scope | Approach-explorer classification system |
-
-### Source Ranking
-
-Sources are ranked by soundness for agent prompt design. Higher-ranked sources take precedence when sources disagree.
-
-1. **Anthropic — "Building effective agents" (Dec 2024)** — Agent architecture patterns with production evidence (Claude Code). Most authoritative for orchestrator-worker design, sub-agent fresh context, and task decomposition.
-2. **LangChain — "Context Engineering for Agents" (2025)** — Write/Select/Compress/Isolate framework. Most authoritative for context window management, JIT loading, and information flow patterns.
-3. **Anthropic — Claude Prompting Best Practices (Claude 4.6)** — Model-specific, up-to-date. Critical for behavioral warnings (overtriggering, subagent overuse). Supersedes general guidance for Claude-targeted agents.
-4. **OpenAI — Prompt Guidance (GPT-5.4)** — Deepest general-purpose reference. Novel concepts: completeness contracts, verification loops, tool persistence rules, empty result recovery. Model-specific but patterns transfer.
-5. **OpenAI Cookbook — Meta-Prompting** — Narrow scope: LLM-as-judge evaluation, iterative prompt refinement. Useful technique, not a framework. See also: Suzgun & Kalai "Meta-Prompting" (2024, arXiv 2401.12954).
-6. **JBurlison/MetaPrompts** — Structural skeleton (agent/skill/prompt/instruction hierarchy). Minimal actual guidance on prompt quality.
-
-### Key Discrepancy Resolution
-
-When sources conflict, these resolutions apply:
-
-| Conflict | Resolution | Why |
-|----------|------------|-----|
-| Authority language ("YOU MUST" vs. normal) | Keep CRITICAL: for mandatory initial-read (compliance-critical). Use normal language elsewhere | Emphasis markers work when rare and specific (signal-to-noise). Anthropic's overtriggering concern applies to general guidance; a single CRITICAL: for a mandatory context gate is a load-bearing instruction, not noise |
-| Example count (2 vs. 3-5) | Target 3+ for conversational agents; inline format examples are sufficient for structured output agents | Anthropic's 3-5 recommendation is general; interactive roles benefit more than output-only roles |
-| Subagent return size (200 vs. 1000-2000 tokens) | Use 300-500 tokens | Anthropic's 1000-2000 is upper bound; 200 was too tight for structured approach summaries with trade-offs |
-| "Don't invent alternatives" vs. "try fallback strategies" | Keep "don't invent" for approach research; use fallbacks for information retrieval | These solve different problems: manufacturing fake options is worse than acknowledging one viable path |
+# GSDD Role Distillation Ledger
+
+Evidence map from each of the 10 canonical GSDD roles to their GSD sources, with keep/strip/why rationale. This ledger documents why each role exists in its current form and what GSD content was distilled or merged.
+
+---
+
+## 1. Mapper
+
+**Canonical role:** `agents/mapper.md`
+
+**GSD source:** `agents/_archive/gsd-codebase-mapper.md`
+
+**Merger type:** Kept-as-is (function scope preserved, output contract simplified)
+
+**Kept from GSD:**
+- Mandatory initial-read discipline for context files
+- 4 focus areas (tech, arch, quality, concerns)
+- Output contract with artifact names and downstream consumers
+- Core algorithm: parse → explore → fill template → write → confirm
+
+**Stripped from GSD:**
+- Multi-file codebase output reduced to 4-file standard (see D1)
+- Validator-pass patterns (GSDD trusts agent reads, not file validation)
+
+**Gained in GSDD:**
+- Explicit "Downstream Consumers" section (shows who uses mapper output)
+- Clear guidance on prescriptive vs. descriptive output (helps agents write better code)
+
+**Rationale:** Mapper is the lowest-level, most stable role. Its core job (explore + document) hasn't changed, but the output set shrank from 7 files to 4 files per D1 (lean context decision). The agent role contract itself needed no substantive changes.
+
+---
+
+## 2. Researcher
+
+**Canonical role:** `agents/researcher.md`
+
+**GSD sources:** `agents/_archive/gsd-project-researcher.md` + `agents/_archive/gsd-phase-researcher.md` (merged)
+
+**Merger type:** Merged (same algorithm, different scope parameter)
+
+**Kept from GSD:**
+- Mandatory initial-read discipline
+- Research scope (project vs. phase)
+- Research mode (ecosystem, feasibility, comparison)
+- Core algorithm: receive scope → identify domains → execute tool hierarchy → verify → write → return structured result
+- Quality guarantees (training data = hypothesis, honest reporting, investigation not confirmation, confidence levels on every finding)
+- Research pitfalls and prevention strategies
+
+**Stripped from GSD:**
+- Separate role contracts for project-researcher and phase-researcher (merged into one with scope parameter)
+- Tool-specific shell commands (kept portable tool contracts instead)
+
+**Gained in GSDD:**
+- Explicit "Scope" table showing scope × trigger × focus × output location
+- Clear statement: "Same algorithm, different scope. The scope is a context input, not a different role."
+
+**Rationale:** The GSD original had two roles (project and phase researcher) that followed the identical algorithm but with a scope parameter. GSDD merged them into one canonical role taking scope as input, reducing the role count from 11 to 9 (later 10 with approach-explorer in D29) while preserving all leverage. This is the clean merger mentioned in D2.
+
+---
+
+## 3. Synthesizer
+
+**Canonical role:** `agents/synthesizer.md`
+
+**GSD source:** `agents/_archive/gsd-research-synthesizer.md` (with recovery hardening from PR #15)
+
+**Merger type:** Kept-as-is (hardened in 2026-03-13)
+
+**Kept from GSD:**
+- Mandatory initial-read discipline
+- Input contract: all 4 research files (STACK, FEATURES, ARCHITECTURE, PITFALLS)
+- Output contract: SUMMARY.md with executive summary, key findings, roadmap implications, confidence/gaps
+- Downstream consumer (roadmapper) and what it needs
+- 6-step execution flow: read → synthesize → extract → derive → assess → write
+
+**Stripped from GSD:**
+- Conditional skip logic (kept mandatory synthesizer per D5 original decision)
+- Vendor-specific output formatting
+
+**Gained in GSDD (PR #15 hardening):**
+- Explicit required files list with blocked-return pattern (do not guess from partial context, return blocked status naming missing file)
+- "Be opinionated" guidance to roadmapper
+- Stronger structured-return contract
+
+**Rationale:** Synthesizer is a thin single-step role with no merge or extraction needed. It was hardened in PR #15 to restore explicit structure and completion discipline, but the core function and leverage remained unchanged from GSD.
+
+---
+
+## 4. Planner
+
+**Canonical role:** `agents/planner.md`
+
+**GSD sources:** `agents/_archive/gsd-planner.md` + `agents/_archive/gsd-plan-checker.md` (merged)
+
+**Merger type:** Merged (orchestration ownership transferred to native adapters)
+
+**Kept from GSD:**
+- Mandatory initial-read discipline
+- Phase goal decomposition and dependency graphs
+- Goal-backward verification (must-haves, artifacts, key links)
+- Planner responsibility and scope
+- Input contract (SPEC, ROADMAP, codebase context, prior phase artifacts)
+- Output contract (PLAN.md with frontmatter, objective, context references, typed tasks)
+
+**Stripped from GSD:**
+- Separate plan-checker role (now a delegate at `distilled/templates/delegates/plan-checker.md`)
+- GSD's native 3-cycle verification loop (embedded in planner) → moved to native adapter surfaces (Claude skill, OpenCode command, Codex agent)
+- Vendor-specific fresh-context orchestration logic
+
+**Gained in GSDD:**
+- Explicit scope boundary: "plan-scoped, does not own verification or milestone audit"
+- Goal-backward section with 4 clear questions
+- Planning process section with concrete steps
+- Reference to plan-checker delegate for fresh-context review
+- Reduced-assurance fallback mode description (when no independent checker runs)
+
+**Rationale:** GSD's plan-checker was a separate role running a 3-cycle revision loop. GSDD merged planner and plan-checker into a single portable contract, but preserved the adversarial review concept through native adapter surfaces. The portable workflow describes the reduced-assurance fallback. This is the high-impact merger from D2 with full tradeoff documentation.
+
+---
+
+## 5. Roadmapper
+
+**Canonical role:** `agents/roadmapper.md`
+
+**GSD source:** `agents/_archive/gsd-roadmapper.md` (with recovery hardening from PR #15)
+
+**Merger type:** Kept-as-is (hardened in 2026-03-13)
+
+**Kept from GSD:**
+- Mandatory initial-read discipline
+- Bounded section structure (phases, requirements, success criteria, coverage validation)
+- Explicit coverage validation
+- Parse-critical artifact contract
+- Structured return modes
+- Checklist-driven completion
+
+**Stripped from GSD:**
+- Template-path references (output lives in `.planning/ROADMAP.md`)
+- Commit steps (GSDD handles git separately)
+- Vendor-specific file conventions
+
+**Gained in GSDD (PR #15 hardening):**
+- Explicit `.planning/ROADMAP.md` ownership contract
+- Explicit `[ ]` / `[-]` / `[x]` status grammar
+- Concrete `ROADMAP CREATED` artifact example
+- Hard boundary: "this role does not settle the separate ROADMAP/STATE lifecycle seam"
+
+**Rationale:** Roadmapper was over-distilled in the initial extraction; PR #15 recovered visible structure and completion discipline. The core role and leverage were intact; hardening just restored the guardrails that improve compliance.
+
+---
+
+## 6. Executor
+
+**Canonical role:** `agents/executor.md`
+
+**GSD source:** `agents/_archive/gsd-executor.md` (with substantial hardening from PR #16)
+
+**Merger type:** Kept-as-is (hardened significantly in 2026-03-13)
+
+**Kept from GSD:**
+- Plan-scoped execution discipline
+- Task implementation and deviation handling
+- Git action recording without repo-specific naming assumptions
+- Checkpoint protocol
+- Completion summary
+- State update responsibility
+
+**Stripped from GSD:**
+- Bash recipe patterns and shell-specific guidance
+- Tool-specific directory naming conventions
+
+**Gained in GSDD (PR #16 hardening):**
+- Explicit scope boundary with 6 things executor does NOT own
+- Clearer deviation rules with priority order (auto-fix bugs first)
+- Success criteria confirmation requirement
+- Verify quality checks now live inside task_completeness (runnable, fast, ordered)
+- Stronger commitment to documented deviations
+
+**Rationale:** Executor is the most complex role, with the broadest deviation surface. PR #16 audit recovered substantive guardrails: explicit scope boundaries, rule priority, and verification discipline. The ~150-line executor contract expanded to ~400 lines because the detail prevents misalignment, not because the job changed.
+
+---
+
+## 7. Verifier
+
+**Canonical role:** `agents/verifier.md`
+
+**GSD source:** `agents/_archive/gsd-verifier.md` (with selective hardening from D2)
+
+**Merger type:** Kept-as-is (scope preserved; cross-phase audit extracted separately)
+
+**Kept from GSD:**
+- Phase-level goal-backward verification
+- Exists/Substantive/Wired gate
+- Anti-pattern scan
+- Output contract with compact base fields (phase, verified, status, score)
+- Verification-report structure
+
+**Stripped from GSD:**
+- Cross-phase integration audit scope (extracted as separate role + workflow)
+- GSD's narrative all-encompassing verification
+
+**Gained in GSDD:**
+- Richer structured verifier findings (re_verification, gaps, human_verification) when material
+- Explicit boundaries: "phase-scoped only, cross-phase integration is a separate concern"
+- D2 cross-reference: why integration-checker exists as a separate role
+
+**Rationale:** Verifier's phase-level job is unchanged. The extraction of integration-checker as a separate milestone surface (D2, PR #12) made verifier smaller and clearer. Phase verification and milestone integration audit are now distinct concerns with explicit handoff points.
+
+---
+
+## 8. Integration-Checker
+
+**Canonical role:** `agents/integration-checker.md`
+
+**GSD source:** `agents/_archive/gsd-integration-checker.md` (with structural recovery in PR #12 and systemic hardening in PR #15)
+
+**Merger type:** Extracted as standalone role (cross-phase scope differs structurally from phase verification)
+
+**Kept from GSD:**
+- Mandatory initial-read discipline
+- Cross-phase wiring verification (exports → imports, APIs → consumers, forms → handlers, data → display)
+- E2E flow tracing
+- Typed structured return
+- Checklist-driven completion
+
+**Stripped from GSD (intentional):**
+- Framework-specific Bash recipes
+- Hardcoded path assumptions
+- File-extension-specific grep flags
+- Tool-specific details that don't survive vendor-agnostic distillation
+
+**Gained in GSDD:**
+- PR #12: explicit section boundaries, stronger structured output, cleaner split between role contract and milestone workflow
+- PR #15: recovered compliance guardrails, restored mandatory read enforcement, explicit auth-protection verification
+- D2 reference: structural difference from phase verifier
+- New in D21 (PR #35): Step 4a matrix-driven auth verification (if AUTH_MATRIX.md exists)
+
+**Rationale:** GSD's integration-checker was a separate surface but lived in the shadows of the main role contracts. PR #12 extracted it fully; PR #15 recovered its substantive guardrails. The role is different from verifier because it owns milestone scope (all-phase wiring) vs. phase scope (phase goal). This is the cleanest separation in D2.
+
+---
+
+## 9. Debugger
+
+**Canonical role:** `agents/debugger.md`
+
+**GSD source:** `agents/_archive/gsd-debugger.md` (no changes)
+
+**Merger type:** Kept-as-is (unchanged)
+
+**Kept from GSD:**
+- Systematic debugging methodology
+- Hypothesis formulation and testing
+- State persistence across context resets
+- Structured checkpoint protocol
+- Deviation handling
+
+**Stripped from GSD:** (nothing significant)
+- Minor tool path references
+
+**Gained in GSDD:** (nothing)
+- The role is kept as-is for compatibility
+
+**Rationale:** Debugger is a standalone utility role with no dependencies on other roles. It was preserved exactly as-is from GSD because it works and has no vendor lock-in. It's used ad-hoc when agents encounter failures, not as part of the main workflow pipeline.
+
+---
+
+## 10. Approach-Explorer
+
+**Canonical role:** `agents/approach-explorer.md`
+
+**GSD sources:** `workflows/discuss-phase.md` + `workflows/list-phase-assumptions.md` + `workflows/discovery-phase.md` (merged into new role)
+
+**Merger type:** New role from 2 GSD sources (discuss-phase + list-phase-assumptions) with thematic input from discovery-phase
+
+**Kept from GSD:**
+- Gray area identification with 5 domain types (SEE/CALL/RUN/READ/ORGANIZED) from discuss-phase
+- Scope guardrail: phase boundary is fixed, deferred ideas captured not acted on
+- 5-dimension assumption surfacing (technical approach, implementation order, scope boundaries, risks, dependencies) with confidence levels from list-phase-assumptions
+- Deferred ideas capture from discuss-phase
+- Adaptive area-by-area deep questioning from discuss-phase (GSD used 4-question batches; GSDD uses adaptive convergence)
+
+Note: `discovery-phase.md` contributed the concept of pre-planning research but the mechanism is entirely different — GSD used 3-level depth workflows (Quick/Standard/Deep) as a separate invocation; GSDD uses per-gray-area research subagents embedded in the plan workflow. This is thematic inspiration, not a structural merger.
+
+**Stripped from GSD:**
+- `gsd-tools.cjs` dependencies and STATE.md updates
+- Vendor-specific commit steps, path conventions, and "Claude" references
+- CONTEXT.md output format (replaced with structured APPROACH.md)
+- Separate workflow invocation (absorbed into plan workflow as inline + research subagent hybrid)
+- Rigid 4-question batched loop (replaced with adaptive questioning until decision converges)
+
+**Gained in GSDD:**
+- XML semantic structure matching planner pattern (`<role>`, `<algorithm>`, `<examples>`, etc.)
+- 3 few-shot conversation examples (taste decision, technical decision, hybrid + delegation)
+- Gray area classification: taste (ask directly), technical (research first), hybrid (both)
+- Pre-question research per gray area via isolated research subagents returning compressed summaries
+- Self-check quality gate before writing APPROACH.md
+- Intermediate decision persistence (protect against context limits)
+- JIT context loading with extraction guidance (read ONLY locked decisions from SPEC, ONLY phase goal from ROADMAP)
+- Structured approach comparison with trade-offs
+- File persistence to `{padded_phase}-APPROACH.md` using dedicated template
+- Plan-checker integration via new `approach_alignment` verification dimension
+- Config toggle (`workflow.discuss: true|false`) for optional skip
+- Downstream consumer contract: planner reads locked decisions, plan-checker verifies alignment
+- "Agent's Discretion" explicit marking for areas where user delegates choice (vendor-neutral)
+- Hybrid architecture: conversation inline (main context) + research in subagents. Native agent kept as optimization.
+
+**Rationale:** GSDD's initial distillation dropped GSD's discuss-phase and list-phase-assumptions entirely, removing genuine leverage: the planner converges on a single approach without user input, explores no alternatives, and surfaces no assumptions. The approach explorer recovers this phase-level user alignment by combining GSD's discuss-phase interaction pattern with comparative research. Ground-up rewrite (D29) applied 5 external resources on context engineering, meta-prompting, and agent skill design to produce a prompt-engineered role contract with proper XML structure, examples, adaptive conversation, and hybrid research isolation.
+
+---
+
+## Summary: Merger Table (from D2)
+
+| Canonical role | Absorbs from GSD | Merger criteria |
+|---|---|---|
+| `mapper.md` | `gsd-codebase-mapper.md` | Kept-as-is; output set changed per D1 (7 → 4 files) |
+| `researcher.md` | `gsd-project-researcher.md` + `gsd-phase-researcher.md` | Scope parameter instead of separate role |
+| `synthesizer.md` | `gsd-research-synthesizer.md` | Kept-as-is; hardened in PR #15 |
+| `planner.md` | `gsd-planner.md` + `gsd-plan-checker.md` | Orchestration ownership moved to native adapters; portable checker-delegate created |
+| `roadmapper.md` | `gsd-roadmapper.md` | Kept-as-is; hardened in PR #15 |
+| `executor.md` | `gsd-executor.md` | Kept-as-is; heavily hardened in PR #16 |
+| `verifier.md` | `gsd-verifier.md` | Kept-as-is; cross-phase audit extracted to integration-checker |
+| `integration-checker.md` | `gsd-integration-checker.md` | Extracted as standalone; recovered in PR #12, hardened in PR #15 |
+| `debugger.md` | `gsd-debugger.md` | Kept-as-is; no changes |
+| `approach-explorer.md` | `discuss-phase.md` + `list-phase-assumptions.md` + `discovery-phase.md` | New role from 3 GSD workflow sources |
+
+**Result:** 11 GSD roles → 10 GSDD canonical roles (2 mergers: researcher, planner). 1 extraction: integration-checker moved from embedded to standalone. 1 addition: approach-explorer recovers discuss-phase leverage with research enhancement. Total leverage preserved and extended.
+
+---
+
+## Evidence and Context
+
+- GSD sources: `agents/_archive/gsd-*.md`
+- GSDD canonical roles: `agents/*.md` (all except `_archive/`)
+- Design decisions: `distilled/DESIGN.md` (D1, D2)
+- PR history:
+  - PR #9: Delegate extraction
+  - PR #12: Integration-checker extraction and lifecycle contract seam
+  - PR #14-17: Systemic role-contract hardening and leverage recovery
+  - PR #35: OWASP authorization matrix integration into integration-checker
+
+---
+
+## Maintenance
+
+This ledger is updated when:
+
+1. A canonical role contract changes significantly (update the "Kept"/"Stripped"/"Gained" sections)
+2. A GSD role is merged into or extracted from a canonical role (update the merger table)
+3. New evidence surfaces that changes the distillation rationale (update with citation)
+
+Do not add speculative content. Every entry must reference actual source files and PRs that contain evidence.
+
+---
+
+## Role Contract Design Principles
+
+Cross-source best practices applied to GSDD role contracts, audited against 6 external resources. These principles govern how role contracts should be written and revised. Ranked by impact.
+
+> **Source note:** "Anthropic CE" in this section refers to Anthropic's "Building effective agents" (Dec 2024) for orchestration and sub-agent patterns, and LangChain's "Context Engineering for Agents" (2025) for Write/Select/Compress/Isolate context management patterns. They are cited separately where attribution is precise.
+
+### Architecture-Level (highest leverage)
+
+| Principle | What It Means | Source | GSDD Implementation |
+|-----------|--------------|--------|---------------------|
+| **Context isolation** | Research and heavy reads go in subagents; only compressed summaries enter the main context | Anthropic "Building effective agents" (Dec 2024): orchestrator-worker pattern — sub-agents do deep technical work and return condensed summaries | Approach explorer research subagents return ~1000-token summaries; plan-checker runs in fresh context |
+| **JIT context loading** | Never say "read everything." Specify what to extract from each file | LangChain "Context Engineering for Agents" (2025): Select step of Write/Select/Compress/Isolate — load only the specific content needed, not full files | `<input_contract>` with extraction guidance: "From SPEC.md read ONLY locked decisions" |
+| **Intermediate persistence** | For long interactions, write confirmed state to disk incrementally | Anthropic BEA: agent memory outside context window. LangChain CE: Write pattern — confirmed state persisted to disk | Approach explorer writes decisions to disk as they're confirmed during conversation |
+| **Progressive disclosure** | Don't front-load all context; let agents discover incrementally | LangChain CE: Compress/Isolate patterns — agents assemble understanding incrementally rather than loading everything upfront | Gray areas presented individually; research loaded per area on demand |
+
+### Prompt Structure (medium leverage)
+
+| Principle | What It Means | Source | GSDD Implementation |
+|-----------|--------------|--------|---------------------|
+| **XML semantic structure** | Use XML tags to separate role, instructions, examples, inputs, outputs, anti-patterns | Anthropic Claude: "XML tags help Claude parse complex prompts unambiguously" | All roles use `<role>`, most use `<quality_guarantees>`, `<anti_patterns>`. Approach-explorer adds `<algorithm>`, `<examples>`, `<scope_guardrail>` |
+| **Anti-patterns early** | Place "don't do this" instructions near the top, after role definition | Anthropic Claude prompting docs: critical information at the beginning receives more attention (primacy effect in long-context prompts) | `<anti_patterns>` placed immediately after `<role>` in all roles that have them |
+| **Few-shot examples** | Show the pattern of interaction, not just output format | Anthropic Claude: "3-5 examples for best results." Examples in `<example>` tags | Approach-explorer: 3 examples. Other roles use inline format examples within algorithm sections |
+| **Self-check before output** | Run an explicit checklist before producing the final artifact | OpenAI: "verification loops." Anthropic Claude: "Ask Claude to self-check" | Approach-explorer step 7; planner `<plan_self_check>`; executor completion verification |
+| **Scope boundaries with heuristics** | Don't just list in/out of scope — give the agent a judgment rule | Novel, validated in approach-explorer | "Does this clarify implementation within the phase, or does it add a capability that could be its own phase?" |
+
+### Language & Tone (lower leverage, still matters)
+
+| Principle | What It Means | Source | GSDD Implementation |
+|-----------|--------------|--------|---------------------|
+| **Authority language: intentional leverage** | Anthropic Claude warns "CRITICAL:" can overtrigger on newer models. GSDD decision: **keep CRITICAL: for mandatory initial-read** — a genuine compliance-critical instruction where skipping causes cascading failures. Emphasis markers work when rare and specific (signal-to-noise principle: one CRITICAL: in a role contract is a load-bearing gate; ten would be noise). Use normal language for algorithm steps, scope guidance, and quality rules. | Anthropic Claude prompting docs (overtriggering caution) + technical writing signal-to-noise principle. GSDD applies the caution selectively: only compliance-critical context gates use CRITICAL: | `CRITICAL: Mandatory initial read` kept in all 7 roles. `NEVER` kept for security (mapper secret protection). Normal language used for algorithm steps, scope guidance, and quality rules |
+| **Tell what to do, not just what not to do** | Anti-patterns alone are insufficient; pair with positive instructions | Anthropic Claude: "Tell Claude what to do instead of what not to do" | Every role has both `<anti_patterns>` AND positive algorithm/process sections |
+| **Context for instructions** | Explain WHY a rule exists so the agent can generalize | Anthropic Claude: "Providing context or motivation behind your instructions helps Claude better understand your goals" | Research quality rules explain WHY: "Training data is a hypothesis. Verify before asserting." |
+
+### Novel Patterns (not from any source)
+
+These patterns emerged from GSDD's specific needs and were validated through implementation:
+
+| Pattern | What It Does | Where Used |
+|---------|-------------|------------|
+| **Taste/Technical/Hybrid classification** | Adapts research depth to decision type; taste needs no research, technical does | Approach-explorer step 2 |
+| **Research quality rules** | "One viable option is valid" / "Don't manufacture trade-offs" | Approach-explorer step 3 |
+| **5-dimension assumption surfacing** | Forces transparency about inferences vs. confirmed facts, with confidence levels | Approach-explorer step 6 |
+| **Agent's Discretion delegation** | User can explicitly say "you decide" — reduces fatigue on low-stakes choices | Approach-explorer step 4, planner `<approach_decisions>` |
+| **Domain classification table** | SEE/CALL/RUN/READ/ORGANIZED determines gray area focus per phase type | Approach-explorer step 2 |
+| **Degrees of freedom mapping** | Taste=high freedom, technical=low freedom (research-constrained). GSDD-originated: applies statistical degrees-of-freedom concept to prompt design scope | Approach-explorer classification system |
+
+### Source Ranking
+
+Sources are ranked by soundness for agent prompt design. Higher-ranked sources take precedence when sources disagree.
+
+1. **Anthropic — "Building effective agents" (Dec 2024)** — Agent architecture patterns with production evidence (Claude Code). Most authoritative for orchestrator-worker design, sub-agent fresh context, and task decomposition.
+2. **LangChain — "Context Engineering for Agents" (2025)** — Write/Select/Compress/Isolate framework. Most authoritative for context window management, JIT loading, and information flow patterns.
+3. **Anthropic — Claude Prompting Best Practices (Claude 4.6)** — Model-specific, up-to-date. Critical for behavioral warnings (overtriggering, subagent overuse). Supersedes general guidance for Claude-targeted agents.
+4. **OpenAI — Prompt Guidance (GPT-5.4)** — Deepest general-purpose reference. Novel concepts: completeness contracts, verification loops, tool persistence rules, empty result recovery. Model-specific but patterns transfer.
+5. **OpenAI Cookbook — Meta-Prompting** — Narrow scope: LLM-as-judge evaluation, iterative prompt refinement. Useful technique, not a framework. See also: Suzgun & Kalai "Meta-Prompting" (2024, arXiv 2401.12954).
+6. **JBurlison/MetaPrompts** — Structural skeleton (agent/skill/prompt/instruction hierarchy). Minimal actual guidance on prompt quality.
+
+### Key Discrepancy Resolution
+
+When sources conflict, these resolutions apply:
+
+| Conflict | Resolution | Why |
+|----------|------------|-----|
+| Authority language ("YOU MUST" vs. normal) | Keep CRITICAL: for mandatory initial-read (compliance-critical). Use normal language elsewhere | Emphasis markers work when rare and specific (signal-to-noise). Anthropic's overtriggering concern applies to general guidance; a single CRITICAL: for a mandatory context gate is a load-bearing instruction, not noise |
+| Example count (2 vs. 3-5) | Target 3+ for conversational agents; inline format examples are sufficient for structured output agents | Anthropic's 3-5 recommendation is general; interactive roles benefit more than output-only roles |
+| Subagent return size (200 vs. 1000-2000 tokens) | Use 300-500 tokens | Anthropic's 1000-2000 is upper bound; 200 was too tight for structured approach summaries with trade-offs |
+| "Don't invent alternatives" vs. "try fallback strategies" | Keep "don't invent" for approach research; use fallbacks for information retrieval | These solve different problems: manufacturing fake options is worse than acknowledging one viable path |