waypoint-codex 1.0.2 → 1.0.4

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "waypoint-codex",
-  "version": "1.0.2",
+  "version": "1.0.4",
   "description": "Make Codex better by default with stronger planning, code quality, reviews, tracking, and repo guidance.",
   "license": "MIT",
   "type": "module",

package/templates/.agents/skills/agi-help/SKILL.md

@@ -98,12 +98,47 @@ Do not optimize for brevity by dropping relevant material.
 If a file is relevant, include it in full.
 If multiple files are relevant, include all of them.
 If prior plans, failed attempts, docs, architecture notes, or state files materially change the answer, include them too.
+Do not trim the bundle down to only the files that seem to directly answer the question. Include files that define constraints, history, surrounding system behavior, rejected approaches, current state, or any other context that materially changes how GPT-5.4-Pro should reason.
 
 The bottleneck here is not token thrift inside Codex. The bottleneck is giving GPT-5.4-Pro enough real context to reason well.
 
 Curate relevance aggressively. Compress relevance only by excluding things that truly do not matter.
 Do **not** compress relevant context just because it is long.
 
+## Core Rule: Make The Request Standalone
+
+Write the handoff so GPT-5.4-Pro can produce a strong answer in a brand new session with no prior context and no follow-up.
+
+Do not rely on:
+
+- prior chat history
+- "as discussed above"
+- local repo knowledge
+- implicit shared assumptions
+- GPT-5.4-Pro asking clarifying questions before it can reason well
+
+The request should contain the full problem, the full context, the real objective, and the expected output shape.
+
+## Core Rule: Ask Outcome-Level Questions
+
+Frame the request around the real goal, source of truth, or decision to be made.
+
+Prefer:
+
+- "Given the attached context, propose the best architecture for this system"
+- "Evaluate the current implementation against the attached north-star document and identify all important mismatches"
+- "Given the current product, constraints, and code, recommend the best migration strategy"
+
+Avoid narrow, history-led framing unless the task is intentionally narrow.
+
+Avoid prompts like:
+
+- "We recently changed X, can you check if this looks right?"
+- "Did we fix issue Y?"
+- "Can you look at this follow-up from the last pass?"
+
+Prior findings, recent changes, and local debates can be included as background, but they should not become the main frame unless that is truly the task.
+
 ## Workflow
 
 ### 1. Justify AGI-Help
@@ -132,6 +167,7 @@ Collect the context it would need to reason well, such as:
 - what has already been tried
 - what is blocked, unclear, risky, or contentious
 - what a successful answer would help us decide or do next
+- what source of truth, target state, desired behavior, or decision standard should govern the answer
 
 This is not a fixed checklist. Include whatever materially changes the quality of the answer.
 
@@ -139,9 +175,13 @@ This is not a fixed checklist. Include whatever materially changes the quality o
 
 Create `files/` and copy in the relevant source material.
 
+The standard is completeness, not minimality.
+If a file materially affects the question, the answer, the constraints, or the reasoning path, include it even when it is only indirectly relevant.
+
 Examples of relevant files:
 
 - core implementation files
+- supporting files that materially change the reasoning, even if they do not directly answer the question
 - architecture docs
 - plans
 - active plan or workspace files
@@ -149,6 +189,8 @@ Examples of relevant files:
 - failing or partial implementations
 - screenshots or exported artifacts when available through the current tool surface
 - strategy docs, briefs, drafts, notes, or prior outputs that define the problem
+- source-of-truth documents such as specs, north-star docs, acceptance criteria, or decision memos
+- surrounding files that materially affect the verdict even if they were not changed recently
 
 Preserve relative structure inside `files/` when it helps orientation.
 
@@ -167,6 +209,8 @@ Keep this concise but useful.
 
 Write the prompt as if briefing a world-class expert who has zero implicit context.
 
+The prompt should ask for a complete answer to the actual problem, not a reaction to the latest local narrative.
+
 The prompt should usually include:
 
 1. **Role / framing**
@@ -184,7 +228,7 @@ The prompt should usually include:
 7. **Attached materials**
    - tell it that files are attached and should be read before answering
 8. **Specific request**
-   - the concrete question or task
+   - the concrete task framed at the outcome/spec/decision level
 9. **Desired output shape**
    - exactly how the answer should be structured
 
@@ -207,6 +251,14 @@ Ask for something concrete, such as:
 - a better strategy or positioning approach
 - a decision memo with tradeoffs and risks
 
+When the task is evaluative, ask for a complete evaluation against the governing standard, not confirmation of recent fixes.
+
+Examples:
+
+- "Does the current system satisfy the attached target architecture? If not, identify all important mismatches with evidence."
+- "Given the attached implementation and requirements, what is the best recommendation and why?"
+- "Using the attached code, docs, and constraints, produce a complete architecture proposal for the new system."
+
 ### Specify The Output Format
 
 Tell GPT-5.4-Pro how to respond.
@@ -221,6 +273,17 @@ Good example shapes:
 
 Explicitly instruct it to review the attached files before answering.
 
+### Do Not Depend On Follow-Up
+
+Assume Mark wants one strong answer, not a clarification loop.
+
+So:
+
+- front-load the necessary context
+- state the objective precisely
+- include the governing constraints and source of truth
+- ask for the full answer in one pass
+
 ## Final Handoff To Mark
 
 When the bundle is ready, report: