From 5ef68a00460dba4ba27ce78cb5a342652ee9a998 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ed_ Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2026 08:30:38 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] conductor(track): Add intent_dsl_survey_20260612 plan Executable plan for the report. 28 tasks across 4 phases: - Phase 1 (Tasks 1-3): source gathering + state/metadata + outline stub - Phase 2 (Tasks 4-14): write sections 1, 2 (8 clusters), 3 - Phase 3 (Tasks 15-23): write sections 4 (4 tiers), 5, 6, 7 + Appendix - Phase 4 (Tasks 24-28): self-review + user review + final commit + tracks.md Each task has file:line references, exact commands, and expected output. Self-review confirms all 21 spec requirements are covered; no placeholders; type-consistent. The track is research-only, so the plan recommends inline execution by a single Tier 2 Tech Lead. Subagent-driven per task is also an option if context isolation is preferred. Time-sensitive: report must complete before nagent v2.2. --- .../tracks/intent_dsl_survey_20260612/plan.md | 1015 +++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 1015 insertions(+) create mode 100644 conductor/tracks/intent_dsl_survey_20260612/plan.md diff --git a/conductor/tracks/intent_dsl_survey_20260612/plan.md b/conductor/tracks/intent_dsl_survey_20260612/plan.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..4160cc94 --- /dev/null +++ b/conductor/tracks/intent_dsl_survey_20260612/plan.md @@ -0,0 +1,1015 @@ +# Intent-Based Scripting Languages Survey — Implementation Plan + +> **For agentic workers:** REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Use superpowers:subagent-driven-development (recommended) or superpowers:executing-plans to implement this plan task-by-task. Steps use checkbox (`- [ ]`) syntax for tracking. + +**Goal:** Produce the report at `docs/ideation/2026-06-12-intent-based-scripting-languages.md` (7 sections, ~3500-5000 lines) surveying intent-based scripting languages and proposing a 4-tier vocab for a Meta-Tooling-facing intent DSL. Research-only — no `src/` code, no tests, no `pyproject.toml` changes. + +**Architecture:** The track produces 1 markdown file in `docs/ideation/`. The 7 sections are written sequentially across 3 self-directed phases (1-3) plus 1 user-approval phase (4). Each phase ends with a checkpoint commit. The user sees only the final report and either approves (commit + register in `tracks.md`) or iterates. + +**Tech Stack:** Markdown only. No new code, no new dependencies, no new tests. + +**Time-sensitivity:** Per the user, the report must complete before nagent v2.2. Phases 1-3 are self-directed; only phase 4 requires user input. The plan can be paused at any phase boundary without losing work. + +**Source of truth:** `conductor/tracks/intent_dsl_survey_20260612/spec.md` (the approved spec, commit `b389f1be`). All 7 sections, all verbs, all file:line references, all 12 verification criteria are detailed there. The plan executes the spec; it does not redefine it. + +--- + +## File Structure + +This track creates/modifies the following files: + +| File | Action | Purpose | +|---|---|---| +| `docs/ideation/2026-06-12-intent-based-scripting-languages.md` | **Create** | The report. ~3500-5000 lines, 7 sections, 1 appendix. | +| `conductor/tracks/intent_dsl_survey_20260612/state.toml` | **Create** | State file per `conductor/workflow.md` template. | +| `conductor/tracks/intent_dsl_survey_20260612/metadata.json` | **Create** | Track metadata per spec §1. | +| `conductor/tracks.md` | **Modify** | Register track as completed after phase 4. | + +**Decomposition rationale:** The report is 1 file because the 7 sections form a single coherent argument (philosophy → prior art → grammar → vocab → hardware → AI-agent → open questions). Splitting into multiple files would break the argument's continuity. The state.toml and metadata.json follow the project's track-folder convention (per `conductor/tracks/data_oriented_error_handling_20260606/`). + +--- + +## Phase 1: Source Gathering + Outline + +### Task 1: Read all 8 prior-art sources end-to-end + +**Files:** +- Read (do not modify): the 8 sources listed in `conductor/tracks/intent_dsl_survey_20260612/spec.md` §13.3 + +- [ ] **Step 1: Read the 4 Onat/Lottes reference files in `C:\projects\forth\bootslop\references\`** + +Read in order: +- `kyra_in-depth.md` (86 lines) — Onat's 2-register stack, magenta pipe, basic blocks/lambdas +- `forth_day_2020_in-depth.md` (58 lines) — Onat's ColorForth + SPIR-V +- `neokineogfx_in-depth.md` (62 lines) — Lottes's x68/5th, folded interpreter, annotation overlay +- `blog_in-depth.md` (97 lines) — Lottes's full source-less evolution, "Ear" + "Toe" +- `Architectural_Consolidation.md` (44 lines) — synthesis +- `X.com - Onat & Lottes Interaction 1.png.ocr.md` (113 lines) — direct quotes from the X.com thread + +- [ ] **Step 2: Read the CoSy pages** + +Fetch `https://cosy.com/CoSy/Simplicity.html` and `https://cosy.com/4thCoSy/`. If a local copy is preferred, the Simplicity page's key claims (3-cell header, modulo indexing, "extensive vocabulary evolved from APL via K") can be cited from memory of the fetch done during spec review. + +- [ ] **Step 3: Read the Jofito sources** + +- `docs/transcripts/Ddme7DwMQBI_jofito_jody_bruchon.txt` (428 lines) — full video transcript +- The Jofito README at `https://codeberg.org/jbruchon/jofito` — already fetched during spec review; the key claims (intent mapping engine, arena allocation, pipe coalescing) are in the transcript + +- [ ] **Step 3: Read the O'Donnell pages** + +Fetch `https://johno.se/book/imgui.html`, `https://johno.se/book/pitch.html`, `https://johno.se/book/immvc.html`, `https://johno.se/book/mvc.html`. The 4 claims (widgets are method invocations, "reads are free / writes are formalized", IEventTarget, no scene-graph abstractions) are the section 1 anchors. + +- [ ] **Step 4: Read the project's nagent v2.1 report and the data_oriented_error_handling spec** + +- `conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/nagent_review_v2_1_20260612.md` §2.1, §2.2, §2.10 (4 memory dimensions, stable-to-volatile cache ordering, RAG integration discipline) +- `conductor/tracks/data_oriented_error_handling_20260606/spec.md` §3.3 (the `Result[T]` + `ErrorInfo` pattern) +- `docs/reports/computational_shapes_ssdl_digest_20260608.md` §1 (the 6 SSDL primitives + 7 modifiers) +- `docs/guide_meta_boundary.md` (Application vs Meta-Tooling split) +- `docs/guide_command_palette.md` (the 33 existing commands) +- `docs/guide_tools.md` (the 45+ MCP tools the DSL maps to) +- `docs/Readme.md` (the doc index for the bibliography) + +- [ ] **Step 5: Take a 1-line note per source for the bibliography** + +For each of the 8 prior-art source groups, note the single most important file:line or URL that other agents can cite. Example: "Onat KYRA: `kyra_in-depth.md:21-26` (the xchg trick)". + +### Task 2: Create the track folder + state.toml + metadata.json + +**Files:** +- Create: `conductor/tracks/intent_dsl_survey_20260612/state.toml` +- Create: `conductor/tracks/intent_dsl_survey_20260612/metadata.json` + +- [ ] **Step 1: Create the state.toml per the template in `conductor/workflow.md`** + +```toml +# Track state for intent_dsl_survey_20260612 +# Updated by Tier 2 Tech Lead as tasks complete + +[meta] +track_id = "intent_dsl_survey_20260612" +name = "Intent-Based Scripting Languages Survey" +status = "active" +current_phase = 0 # 0 = pre-Phase 1 +last_updated = "2026-06-12" + +[blocked_by] +# No blockers. Track is independent. + +[phases] +phase_1 = { status = "pending", checkpointsha = "", name = "Source gathering + outline" } +phase_2 = { status = "pending", checkpointsha = "", name = "Write sections 1, 2, 3" } +phase_3 = { status = "pending", checkpointsha = "", name = "Write sections 4, 5, 6, 7" } +phase_4 = { status = "pending", checkpointsha = "", name = "Self-review + user review + commit" } + +[tasks] +t1_1 = { status = "in_progress", commit_sha = "", description = "Read all 8 prior-art sources end-to-end" } +t1_2 = { status = "pending", commit_sha = "", description = "Create state.toml + metadata.json" } +t1_3 = { status = "pending", commit_sha = "", description = "Write 7-section outline stub" } +t1_4 = { status = "pending", commit_sha = "", description = "Phase 1 checkpoint commit" } +t2_1 = { status = "pending", commit_sha = "", description = "Write section 1 (philosophy)" } +t2_2 = { status = "pending", commit_sha = "", description = "Write section 2 cluster 0 (O'Donnell)" } +t2_3 = { status = "pending", commit_sha = "", description = "Write section 2 cluster 1 (Concatenative)" } +t2_4 = { status = "pending", commit_sha = "", description = "Write section 2 cluster 2 (Array)" } +t2_5 = { status = "pending", commit_sha = "", description = "Write section 2 cluster 3 (Intent-mapping)" } +t2_6 = { status = "pending", commit_sha = "", description = "Write section 2 cluster 4 (Meta-Tooling DSLs)" } +t2_7 = { status = "pending", commit_sha = "", description = "Write section 2 cluster 5 (SSDL)" } +t2_8 = { status = "pending", commit_sha = "", description = "Write section 2 cluster 6 (Command Palette)" } +t2_9 = { status = "pending", commit_sha = "", description = "Write section 2 cluster 7 (Result)" } +t2_10 = { status = "pending", commit_sha = "", description = "Write section 3 (grammar)" } +t2_11 = { status = "pending", commit_sha = "", description = "Phase 2 checkpoint commit" } +t3_1 = { status = "pending", commit_sha = "", description = "Write section 4 Tier 1 (math)" } +t3_2 = { status = "pending", commit_sha = "", description = "Write section 4 Tier 2 (data pipeline)" } +t3_3 = { status = "pending", commit_sha = "", description = "Write section 4 Tier 3 (shell)" } +t3_4 = { status = "pending", commit_sha = "", description = "Write section 4 Tier 4 (AI-fuzzing tolerance)" } +t3_5 = { status = "pending", commit_sha = "", description = "Write section 5 (hardware mapping)" } +t3_6 = { status = "pending", commit_sha = "", description = "Write section 6 (AI-agent properties)" } +t3_7 = { status = "pending", commit_sha = "", description = "Write section 7 (open questions)" } +t3_8 = { status = "pending", commit_sha = "", description = "Phase 3 checkpoint commit" } +t4_1 = { status = "pending", commit_sha = "", description = "Self-review per brainstorming skill" } +t4_2 = { status = "pending", commit_sha = "", description = "User review" } +t4_3 = { status = "pending", commit_sha = "", description = "Apply user feedback (if any)" } +t4_4 = { status = "pending", commit_sha = "", description = "Final commit + git note" } +t4_5 = { status = "pending", commit_sha = "", description = "Update tracks.md to register track as completed" } + +[verification] +phase_1_complete = false +phase_2_complete = false +phase_3_complete = false +phase_4_complete = false +all_7_sections_present = false +all_prior_art_cited = false +all_4_tier_verbs_complete = false +hardware_mapping_referenced = false +ai_agent_properties_referenced = false +section_7_has_6_open_questions = false +self_review_complete = false +user_approved = false +git_note_attached = false +tracks_md_registered = false +``` + +- [ ] **Step 2: Create the metadata.json per the existing track pattern** + +```json +{ + "track_id": "intent_dsl_survey_20260612", + "name": "Intent-Based Scripting Languages Survey", + "created": "2026-06-12", + "priority": "A (research)", + "status": "active", + "type": "research-only", + "domain": "Meta-Tooling", + "blocked_by": [], + "deliverable": "docs/ideation/2026-06-12-intent-based-scripting-languages.md", + "consumed_by": [ + "nagent v2.2 (Future-Track Candidate #4: Intent-based DSL)", + "intent_dsl_for_meta_tooling_20260608_PLACEHOLDER (per mcp_architecture_refactor_20260606/spec.md §12.1)", + "future interpreter prototype (follow-up B track)" + ], + "estimated_size": "3500-5000 lines", + "time_sensitive": "Must complete before nagent v2.2 ships", + "spec_commit": "b389f1be", + "spec_path": "conductor/tracks/intent_dsl_survey_20260612/spec.md", + "plan_path": "conductor/tracks/intent_dsl_survey_20260612/plan.md", + "state_path": "conductor/tracks/intent_dsl_survey_20260612/state.toml" +} +``` + +- [ ] **Step 3: Commit the folder + state + metadata** + +```bash +git add conductor/tracks/intent_dsl_survey_20260612/state.toml conductor/tracks/intent_dsl_survey_20260612/metadata.json +git commit -m "conductor(track): Add intent_dsl_survey_20260612 state + metadata" +``` + +### Task 3: Write the 7-section outline as a stub + +**Files:** +- Create: `docs/ideation/2026-06-12-intent-based-scripting-languages.md` + +- [ ] **Step 1: Create the file with the header + 7-section outline (1 paragraph per section)** + +Use the following structure (one paragraph per section; the actual content gets written in phases 2-3): + +```markdown +# Intent-Based Scripting Languages + +**Track:** `intent_dsl_survey_20260612` (committed 2026-06-12) +**Date:** 2026-06-12 +**Author:** Tier 2 Tech Lead +**Status:** Outline draft (phases 1-3 of 4) + +> **What this is.** A survey of intent-based scripting languages as a design philosophy, plus a proposed vocabulary (~40 verbs across 4 tiers) for a Meta-Tooling-facing intent DSL. The report is the foundation document for the user's nagent v2.2 (its "Future-Track Candidate #4" section) and for the future interpreter prototype (follow-up B track). +> +> **What this is NOT.** Not an interpreter, not a bridge script, not Application-side function-calling, not XML/JSON record formats. The DSL is Meta-Tooling-side per `docs/guide_meta_boundary.md`. + +--- + +## 1. The "Intent-Based" Design Philosophy + +*[STUB: 4 anchor claims — O'Donnell immediate-mode as the anchor; Onat/Lottes hardware as the truth; CoSy open-vocabulary as the user surface; Jofito intent-mapping as the framing. ~2-3 pages.]* + +## 2. Prior Art Survey (8 Clusters) + +### Cluster 0 — Immediate-Mode Paradigm (philosophical anchor) +*[STUB: O'Donnell IMGUI/MVC. ~0.5-1 page.]* + +### Cluster 1 — Concatenative (Forth family) +*[STUB: Forth, ColorForth, KYRA, x68, Joy, CoSy. ~1-1.5 pages.]* + +### Cluster 2 — Array +*[STUB: APL, K, BQN, Uiua. ~0.5 page.]* + +### Cluster 3 — Intent-Mapping +*[STUB: Jofito, jq, nagent tag [rejected], Wasm. ~0.5-1 page.]* + +### Cluster 4 — Meta-Tooling DSLs and Agent-Facing Languages +*[STUB: mcp_dsl_20260606, nagent Bridge DSL, OpenAI/Anthropic. ~0.5 page.]* + +### Cluster 5 — SSDL Shape Primitives +*[STUB: 6 primitives + 7 modifiers per SSDL digest. ~0.25 page.]* + +### Cluster 6 — Project's Own Command DSL Precedents +*[STUB: 33 Command Palette commands. ~0.25 page.]* + +### Cluster 7 — Data-Oriented Error Handling Convention +*[STUB: Result[T] + ErrorInfo per data_oriented_error_handling. ~0.25 page.]* + +## 3. The Grammar + +*[STUB: 14 primitives formalized from user's pseudocode, with ambiguity flags for `proc`, `++`, and `m[row][column]`. ~2-3 pages.]* + +## 4. The 4-Tier Vocab (~40 Verbs) + +### Tier 1 — Math (~10 verbs) +*[STUB: from user's pseudocode.]* + +### Tier 2 — Data-Oriented Pipeline (~12 verbs) +*[STUB: Onat/Lottes/Jofito lineage.]* + +### Tier 3 — Shell (~10 verbs) +*[STUB: the OS surface.]* + +### Tier 4 — AI-Fuzzing Tolerance (~8 verbs) +*[STUB: the novel piece; sandbox/audit/didyoumean etc.]* + +## 5. Hardware Mapping (4 Anchor Claims) + +*[STUB: Onat/Lottes, O'Donnell, Forth/CoSy, APL/K. ~1-2 pages.]* + +## 6. AI-Agent Properties (10 Claims) + +*[STUB: tying the DSL to existing project architecture. ~2-3 pages.]* + +## 7. Open Questions for Follow-up B (≥6) + +*[STUB: for the interpreter prototype + placeholder connection. ~1-2 pages.]* + +--- + +## Appendix: Bibliography + +*[STUB: full file:line / URL references for all 8 prior-art clusters.]* +``` + +- [ ] **Step 2: Verify the outline structure** + +Run: +```bash +wc -l docs/ideation/2026-06-12-intent-based-scripting-languages.md +grep -c "^## " docs/ideation/2026-06-12-intent-based-scripting-languages.md +grep -c "^### " docs/ideation/2026-06-12-intent-based-scripting-languages.md +``` +Expected: ~70 lines, 7 `## ` headings (sections 1-7 + Appendix), ≥10 `### ` headings (clusters + tiers + claims). + +- [ ] **Step 3: Phase 1 checkpoint commit** + +```bash +git add docs/ideation/2026-06-12-intent-based-scripting-languages.md +git commit -m "docs(ideation): Add intent_dsl_survey_20260612 outline stub" +git notes add -m "intent_dsl_survey_20260612 Phase 1 checkpoint (outline) + +Outline draft for the 7-section report. Sections 1-7 stubbed with +1 paragraph each; actual content to be written in phases 2-3. + +Structure verified: 7 sections, 8 prior-art clusters, 4 vocab tiers, +4 hardware anchor claims, 10 AI-agent property claims. + +Source gathering complete: 8 prior-art source groups read end-to-end. +Bibliography references all 8 in spec §13.3. + +Next: phase 2 (write sections 1, 2, 3)." $(git log -1 --format=%H) +``` + +Update `state.toml`: +- `current_phase = 1` +- `phase_1 = { status = "completed", checkpointsha = "", name = "Source gathering + outline" }` +- `t1_1` to `t1_4` = `completed` with `commit_sha` set + +Commit the state update: +```bash +git add conductor/tracks/intent_dsl_survey_20260612/state.toml +git commit -m "conductor(track): Mark intent_dsl_survey_20260612 phase 1 complete" +``` + +--- + +## Phase 2: Write Sections 1, 2, 3 + +### Task 4: Write section 1 (the philosophy) + +**Files:** +- Modify: `docs/ideation/2026-06-12-intent-based-scripting-languages.md` section 1 + +- [ ] **Step 1: Replace the section 1 stub with the 4 anchor claims** + +Write the 4 anchor claims (per spec §3.1): +1. "Intent-based means the user's words are declarative intent, not imperative commands" (Jofito's framing) +2. "The hardware is the truth" (Onat/Lottes; per `kyra_in-depth.md` and `neokineogfx_in-depth.md`) +3. "The pipeline is immediate-mode" (O'Donnell's "widgets are method invocations, not objects"; per `https://johno.se/book/imgui.html`) +4. "The vocabulary IS the user surface" (CoSy's open-vocabulary; per `https://cosy.com/CoSy/Simplicity.html`) + +Each claim: 1-2 paragraphs. Section 1 total: ~200-400 lines. + +- [ ] **Step 2: Cross-check the 4 claims against their cited sources** + +- Claim 1 (Jofito): cite `docs/transcripts/Ddme7DwMQBI_jofito_jody_bruchon.txt` lines 270-280 (the "write the optimization once" thesis) +- Claim 2 (Onat/Lottes): cite `C:\projects\forth\bootslop\references\kyra_in-depth.md:21-26` (the xchg trick) and `X.com - Onat & Lottes Interaction 1.png.ocr.md:80-86` (Lottes: "registers and globals and gotos, no stacks") +- Claim 3 (O'Donnell): cite `https://johno.se/book/imgui.html` "Immediate Mode applied" section +- Claim 4 (CoSy): cite `https://cosy.com/CoSy/Simplicity.html` "extensive vocabulary evolved from APL via K" paragraph + +- [ ] **Step 3: Commit (not yet — wait for sections 2-3)** + +Continue to next task. Sections 1-3 commit together at end of phase 2. + +### Task 5: Write section 2 cluster 0 (O'Donnell) + +**Files:** +- Modify: `docs/ideation/2026-06-12-intent-based-scripting-languages.md` section 2 cluster 0 + +- [ ] **Step 1: Replace the cluster 0 stub** + +The single entry: John O'Donnell, "IMGUI" / "The Pitch" / "MVC" (johno.se/book/*). + +Per spec §3.2 cluster 0, write 2-3 sentences on the design idea, 2-3 sentences on what we take from it. Cite `https://johno.se/book/imgui.html` (IMGUI), `https://johno.se/book/pitch.html` (the pitch), `https://johno.se/book/mvc.html` (MVC, "reads are free / writes are formalized" / IEventTarget). + +### Task 6: Write section 2 cluster 1 (Concatenative) + +**Files:** +- Modify: `docs/ideation/2026-06-12-intent-based-scripting-languages.md` section 2 cluster 1 + +- [ ] **Step 1: Replace the cluster 1 stub with 6 entries** + +Per spec §3.2 cluster 1, write each of: Forth, ColorForth, KYRA, x68, Joy, CoSy. + +For each: +- 2-3 sentences on the design idea +- 2-3 sentences on what we take from it +- Cite the specific source (Wikipedia for Forth, Onat's talks for KYRA, Lottes's blogs for x68, `https://cosy.com/CoSy/Simplicity.html` for CoSy) + +### Task 7: Write section 2 cluster 2 (Array) + +**Files:** +- Modify: `docs/ideation/2026-06-12-intent-based-scripting-languages.md` section 2 cluster 2 + +- [ ] **Step 1: Replace the cluster 2 stub with 4 entries** + +Per spec §3.2 cluster 2, write each of: APL, K, BQN, Uiua. + +For each: +- 2-3 sentences on the design idea +- 2-3 sentences on what we take from it +- Cite the canonical source (Dyalog for APL, kx.com for K, Marshall Lochbaum's site for BQN, uiua.org for Uiua) + +### Task 8: Write section 2 cluster 3 (Intent-Mapping) + +**Files:** +- Modify: `docs/ideation/2026-06-12-intent-based-scripting-languages.md` section 2 cluster 3 + +- [ ] **Step 1: Replace the cluster 3 stub with 4 entries** + +Per spec §3.2 cluster 3, write each of: Jofito, jq, nagent's tag protocol (REJECTED), Wasm. + +For each: +- 2-3 sentences on the design idea +- 2-3 sentences on what we take (or don't take) from it +- Cite: `docs/transcripts/Ddme7DwMQBI_jofito_jody_bruchon.txt` and `https://codeberg.org/jbruchon/jofito` for Jofito; the existing `nagent_takeaways_20260608.md` line 216-230 for the nagent tag protocol (with an explicit "we REJECT this XML-ish angle bracket approach" note) + +### Task 9: Write section 2 cluster 4 (Meta-Tooling DSLs) + +**Files:** +- Modify: `docs/ideation/2026-06-12-intent-based-scripting-languages.md` section 2 cluster 4 + +- [ ] **Step 1: Replace the cluster 4 stub with 4 entries** + +Per spec §3.2 cluster 4, write each of: `mcp_dsl_20260606` placeholder, nagent's Bridge DSL, OpenAI function-calling schema, Anthropic tool-use schema. + +For each: +- 2-3 sentences on the design idea +- 2-3 sentences on what we take (or don't take) from it +- Cite: `mcp_architecture_refactor_20260606/spec.md` §12.1 for `mcp_dsl_20260606`; `nagent_takeaways_20260608.md` line 216-230 for the Bridge DSL; platform documentation URLs for OpenAI/Anthropic + +### Task 10: Write section 2 cluster 5 (SSDL) + +**Files:** +- Modify: `docs/ideation/2026-06-12-intent-based-scripting-languages.md` section 2 cluster 5 + +- [ ] **Step 1: Replace the cluster 5 stub with the 6 SSDL primitives + 7 modifiers** + +Per spec §3.2 cluster 5, the SSDL shape vocabulary is the meta-vocabulary used to annotate the verbs in section 4. Cite `docs/reports/computational_shapes_ssdl_digest_20260608.md` §1. + +Include the table from the SSDL digest (6 primitives + 7 modifiers). + +### Task 11: Write section 2 cluster 6 (Command Palette) + +**Files:** +- Modify: `docs/ideation/2026-06-12-intent-based-scripting-languages.md` section 2 cluster 6 + +- [ ] **Step 1: Replace the cluster 6 stub with the 33 existing commands + the "Everything" mode future work** + +Per spec §3.2 cluster 6, the 33 Command Palette commands (per `docs/guide_command_palette.md`) are the project's existing vocabulary instincts. The DSL's verbs are a richer superset; "Everything" mode (per `guide_command_palette.md` line 383) is a near-term use case. + +List 5-10 representative commands by category (View, Edit, Project, Layout, Theme, AI, Help) to make the cluster concrete without listing all 33. + +### Task 12: Write section 2 cluster 7 (Result) + +**Files:** +- Modify: `docs/ideation/2026-06-12-intent-based-scripting-languages.md` section 2 cluster 7 + +- [ ] **Step 1: Replace the cluster 7 stub with the `Result[T]` + `ErrorInfo` pattern** + +Per spec §3.2 cluster 7, the DSL's `try`/`recover`/`sandbox`/`didyoumean` verbs return `Result[T]`. The 12 `ErrorKind` values are the canonical error vocabulary. Cite `conductor/tracks/data_oriented_error_handling_20260606/spec.md` §3.3. + +Include the 12 ErrorKind values and the `Result[T]` dataclass signature. + +### Task 13: Write section 3 (the grammar) + +**Files:** +- Modify: `docs/ideation/2026-06-12-intent-based-scripting-languages.md` section 3 + +- [ ] **Step 1: Replace the section 3 stub with the 14-primitive grammar table + ambiguity flags + precedence rules** + +Per spec §3.3: +- The 14 primitives table (with the user's pseudocode examples for each) +- The "Ambiguity flags" subsection (3 known issues: `proc` placement, `++col_offset` → `col_offset += 1`, `m[row][column]` → `m[row, col]`) +- Precedence rules (left-to-right for `->` chains, with `(` `)` for grouping) +- AI-fuzzing tolerance rules (CoSy-style modulo indexing, structured recovery anchors via `{ }`, line/offset independence) +- Error envelope: `try { ... } recover { ... }` returns `Result[T]` +- Block composition: `[ ]` (Onat's basic blocks), `{ }` (body blocks), `arena { }` (tape-drive regions) + +### Task 14: Phase 2 checkpoint commit + +**Files:** +- Modify: `conductor/tracks/intent_dsl_survey_20260612/state.toml` + +- [ ] **Step 1: Verify sections 1-3 are complete** + +Run: +```bash +wc -l docs/ideation/2026-06-12-intent-based-scripting-languages.md +grep -c "^## " docs/ideation/2026-06-12-intent-based-scripting-languages.md +``` +Expected: ~1500-2500 lines, 8 `## ` headings (sections 1-7 + Appendix). + +- [ ] **Step 2: Phase 2 checkpoint commit** + +```bash +git add docs/ideation/2026-06-12-intent-based-scripting-languages.md +git commit -m "docs(ideation): Write intent_dsl_survey_20260612 sections 1-3 + +Section 1: the intent-based design philosophy (4 anchor claims) +Section 2: prior art across 8 clusters (0: IMGUI/MVC, 1: Concatenative, + 2: Array, 3: Intent-mapping, 4: Meta-Tooling DSLs, 5: SSDL, + 6: Command Palette, 7: Result) +Section 3: the 14-primitive grammar with ambiguity flags + +All citations file:line or URL. All clusters cite specific source +material. Grammar formalized from user's pseudocode with explicit +ambiguity flags for proc/++/m[row][column]." +git notes add -m "intent_dsl_survey_20260612 Phase 2 checkpoint (sections 1-3) + +Sections 1, 2, 3 written. Section 1: 4 anchor claims (O'Donnell, +Onat/Lottes, CoSy, Jofito). Section 2: 8 clusters with all +citations. Section 3: 14-primitive grammar table + ambiguity flags. + +Next: phase 3 (write sections 4, 5, 6, 7)." $(git log -1 --format=%H) +``` + +Update `state.toml`: +- `current_phase = 2` +- `phase_2 = { status = "completed", checkpointsha = "", name = "Write sections 1, 2, 3" }` +- `t2_1` to `t2_11` = `completed` with `commit_sha` set + +Commit the state update. + +--- + +## Phase 3: Write Sections 4, 5, 6, 7 + +### Task 15: Write section 4 Tier 1 (math) + +**Files:** +- Modify: `docs/ideation/2026-06-12-intent-based-scripting-languages.md` section 4 Tier 1 + +- [ ] **Step 1: Replace the Tier 1 stub with the 10 math verbs** + +Per spec §3.4 Tier 1, the verbs are: `:=` (local bind), `stack { }` (stack scope), `for x .. n` (range), `+`, `-`, `*`, `/`, `^`, `sum`, `product`, `a[i,j]` (bracket indexing), `if/then`. + +For each verb, the 5-column table: +- Symbol +- Name +- Signature +- One-line semantics +- One example (from the user's pseudocode) +- "Borrowed from" note +- SSDL shape tag + +Tier 1 SSDL shape tags: most are `[I]` (single instruction) since they're scalar operations; the range `for x .. n` is `o==>` (codecycle). + +### Task 16: Write section 4 Tier 2 (data pipeline) + +**Files:** +- Modify: `docs/ideation/2026-06-12-intent-based-scripting-languages.md` section 4 Tier 2 + +- [ ] **Step 1: Replace the Tier 2 stub with the 12 data-pipeline verbs** + +Per spec §3.4 Tier 2, the verbs are: `scan`, `select`, `filter`, `map`, `fold`, `sort`, `group`, `dedupe`, `arena { }`, `scatter`, `gather`, `pipe`. + +For each verb, the 5-column table (with one extra column: "maps to mcp_client tool"): +- Symbol +- Name +- Signature +- One-line semantics +- One example +- "Maps to mcp_client tool" note (e.g., `scan` → `list_directory` + `search_files`) +- "Borrowed from" note +- SSDL shape tag + +Tier 2 SSDL shape tags: `scan` is `[I]`, `filter`/`map` are `===>` (codepath) or `o==>` (codecycle), `arena { }` is `o==>` (codecycle), `pipe` is `===>W===>` (wide codepath). + +### Task 17: Write section 4 Tier 3 (shell) + +**Files:** +- Modify: `docs/ideation/2026-06-12-intent-based-scripting-languages.md` section 4 Tier 3 + +- [ ] **Step 1: Replace the Tier 3 stub with the 10 shell verbs** + +Per spec §3.4 Tier 3, the verbs are: `exec`, `open`, `read`, `write`, `close`, `path`, `env`, `wait`, `poll`, `cwd`. + +For each verb, the 5-column table (with "maps to mcp_client tool" and "maps to shell_runner" columns). + +Tier 3 SSDL shape tags: most are `[I]` (single instruction); `wait`/`poll` are `o==>` (codecycle, blocking or polling). + +### Task 18: Write section 4 Tier 4 (AI-fuzzing tolerance) + +**Files:** +- Modify: `docs/ideation/2026-06-12-intent-based-scripting-languages.md` section 4 Tier 4 + +- [ ] **Step 1: Replace the Tier 4 stub with the 8 AI-fuzzing-tolerance verbs** + +Per spec §3.4 Tier 4, the verbs are: `fuzzy`, `try { ... } recover { ... }`, `sandbox { ... }`, `audit`, `didyoumean`, `span`, `offset`, `assumewide`. + +For each verb, the 5-column table (with "borrowed from" pointing to O'Donnell / Jody / SSDL where applicable). + +This is the **novel tier** — give it extra space. For each verb: +- Signature +- One-line semantics +- One example +- "Why this is needed for AI agents" (the user's specific requirement: deal with AI idiosyncrasies) +- "Borrowed from" note +- SSDL shape tag + +Tier 4 SSDL shape tags: most are `[I]` (single instruction); `try { ... } recover { ... }` is `===>B===>` (codepath with branch); `sandbox { ... }` is `o==>` (codecycle, the IEventTarget boundary); `assumewide` is `===>W===>` (wide codepath assumption). + +### Task 19: Write section 5 (hardware mapping) + +**Files:** +- Modify: `docs/ideation/2026-06-12-intent-based-scripting-languages.md` section 5 + +- [ ] **Step 1: Replace the section 5 stub with the 4 anchor claims** + +Per spec §3.5, the 4 anchor claims: +- **Claim 1 (Onat/Lottes, hardware):** the 2-register stack + magenta pipe + basic blocks + lambdas + preemptive scatter (per `C:\projects\forth\bootslop\references\kyra_in-depth.md`, `forth_day_2020_in-depth.md`, `neokineogfx_in-depth.md`, `X.com - Onat & Lottes Interaction 1.png.ocr.md`) → our `->`, `[ ]`, `arena { }`, `scatter`/`gather`. 8 sub-bullets with file:line references. +- **Claim 2 (O'Donnell, paradigm):** the DSL's pipeline is immediate-mode in pipeline composition. Per `https://johno.se/book/imgui.html`. Manifest in vocab: the `->` chain has no "pipeline object". +- **Claim 3 (Forth/CoSy, syntax):** concatenative syntax is immediate-mode in tokenization, evaluation, and parsing. +- **Claim 4 (APL/K, data):** array languages are immediate-mode in data representation. The DSL's `for x .. n` + `result[row, col]` inherits the "no array object" property. + +### Task 20: Write section 6 (AI-agent properties) + +**Files:** +- Modify: `docs/ideation/2026-06-12-intent-based-scripting-languages.md` section 6 + +- [ ] **Step 1: Replace the section 6 stub with the 10 claims** + +Per spec §3.6, the 10 claims. Each claim is 1-2 paragraphs. Cite the specific project source for each: +- Claim 1: `docs/guide_meta_boundary.md` §"Domain 2: The Meta-Tooling" +- Claim 2: `docs/guide_meta_boundary.md` §"The Inter-Domain Bridges" +- Claim 3: `docs/guide_tools.md` §"The MCP Bridge" +- Claim 4: `conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/nagent_review_v2_1_20260612.md` §2.1 +- Claim 5: `nagent_review_v2_1_20260612.md` §2.2 +- Claim 6: `conductor/tracks/data_oriented_error_handling_20260606/spec.md` §3.3 +- Claim 7: `docs/guide_command_palette.md` +- Claim 8: `docs/guide_state_lifecycle.md` §"Hook API Surface" +- Claim 9: `https://johno.se/book/mvc.html` §"Writing to Model state" (the IEventTarget pattern = the `sandbox` verb) +- Claim 10: `https://johno.se/book/mvc.html` §"Reading Model state" (the "reads are free" claim = the rationale for cheap Tier 2 verbs) + +### Task 21: Write section 7 (open questions) + +**Files:** +- Modify: `docs/ideation/2026-06-12-intent-based-scripting-languages.md` section 7 + +- [ ] **Step 1: Replace the section 7 stub with 8 open questions + the placeholder connection block** + +Per spec §3.7: +- 8 open questions for follow-up B (interpreter prototype) +- The connection block to `intent_dsl_for_meta_tooling_20260608_PLACEHOLDER` (per `mcp_architecture_refactor_20260606/spec.md` §12.1 and `nagent_review_20260608/metadata.json:28`) + +The 8 questions from spec §3.7: +1. How does `arena { }` map to Onat's preemptive scatter? +2. Where does "intent resolution" live? +3. How does `audit` interact with `comms.log`? +4. Does `sandbox` produce `Result[T, ErrorInfo]`? +5. `didyoumean` recovery: parser feature or user-facing verb? +6. How does `for x .. n` interact with Tier 2's `filter`/`map`? +7. How does `sandbox` map to `pre_tool_callback`? +8. Connection to `intent_dsl_for_meta_tooling_20260608_PLACEHOLDER`: minimum subset for one round-trip end-to-end? + +### Task 22: Write the Appendix (bibliography) + +**Files:** +- Modify: `docs/ideation/2026-06-12-intent-based-scripting-languages.md` Appendix + +- [ ] **Step 1: Replace the Appendix stub with the full bibliography** + +Per spec §13.3, the full bibliography with file:line references. Group by cluster. Each entry: 1 line with the source identifier and the file:line or URL. + +For project references, cite the exact files the engineer can read (per spec §13.1): +- `docs/Readme.md` (the doc index) +- `docs/ideation/ed_chunk_data_structures_20260523.md` (the existing ideation doc) +- `conductor/tracks.md` (the active tracks registry) +- `conductor/workflow.md` (the workflow rules) +- `conductor/product.md` (the product guide) +- `conductor/tech-stack.md` (the tech stack) +- `conductor/code_styleguides/` (the styleguides) + +For track-internal references (per spec §13.2): +- `conductor/tracks/data_oriented_error_handling_20260606/spec.md` +- `conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/nagent_review_v2_1_20260612.md` +- `conductor/tracks/mcp_architecture_refactor_20260606/spec.md` §12.1 +- `conductor/tracks/code_path_audit_20260607/spec.md` + +For external references (per spec §13.3): +- All Onat/Lottes files in `C:\projects\forth\bootslop\references\` +- Jofito sources +- CoSy URLs +- O'Donnell URLs + +### Task 23: Phase 3 checkpoint commit + +**Files:** +- Modify: `conductor/tracks/intent_dsl_survey_20260612/state.toml` + +- [ ] **Step 1: Verify the report is complete** + +Run: +```bash +wc -l docs/ideation/2026-06-12-intent-based-scripting-languages.md +grep -c "^## " docs/ideation/2026-06-12-intent-based-scripting-languages.md +grep -c "^### " docs/ideation/2026-06-12-intent-based-scripting-languages.md +``` +Expected: ~3500-5000 lines, 8 `## ` headings (sections 1-7 + Appendix), ~30-50 `### ` headings (clusters + tiers + claims + sub-sections). + +- [ ] **Step 2: Verify the 12 verification criteria from spec §11** + +For each criterion, confirm: +- [ ] All 7 sections present and non-empty +- [ ] Every prior-art claim in section 2 cites a specific source +- [ ] User's pseudocode grammar in section 3 with examples from snippets +- [ ] Every 4-tier verb in section 4 has signature + semantics + example + borrowed-from + SSDL tag +- [ ] Section 5 references Onat/Lottes file:lines +- [ ] Section 6 references the 4 memory dimensions + SSDL + Result + meta-boundary +- [ ] Section 7 has 8 open questions + placeholder connection block +- [ ] Appendix has full bibliography +- [ ] (Self-review, user review, git note, tracks.md registration — done in phase 4) + +- [ ] **Step 3: Phase 3 checkpoint commit** + +```bash +git add docs/ideation/2026-06-12-intent-based-scripting-languages.md +git commit -m "docs(ideation): Write intent_dsl_survey_20260612 sections 4-7 + Appendix + +Section 4: the 4-tier vocab (~40 verbs across T1 math, T2 data + pipeline, T3 shell, T4 AI-fuzzing tolerance) +Section 5: hardware mapping (4 anchor claims to Onat/Lottes, O'Donnell, + Forth/CoSy, APL/K) +Section 6: AI-agent properties (10 claims tying to existing project + architecture) +Section 7: 8 open questions for follow-up B + placeholder connection +Appendix: full bibliography with file:line references + +Report is now feature-complete (pending self-review + user review)." +git notes add -m "intent_dsl_survey_20260612 Phase 3 checkpoint (sections 4-7) + +Sections 4, 5, 6, 7 + Appendix written. Report is feature-complete. + +Section 4: 4-tier vocab with 40 verbs. Each verb has signature, +semantics, example, borrowed-from note, SSDL shape tag, and (for +T2/T3) maps-to-mcp_client-tool column. T4 is the novel contribution. + +Section 5: 4 hardware anchor claims tying the verbs to Onat/Lottes +2-register model, O'Donnell immediate-mode paradigm, Forth/CoSy +concatenative syntax, and APL/K array data. + +Section 6: 10 AI-agent properties tying the DSL to the existing +project: Meta-Tooling domain, runtime path through cli_tool_bridge, +3-layer security, 4 memory dimensions, stable-to-volatile cache, +Result envelope, Command Palette 33 commands, Hook API state fields, +IEventTarget = sandbox verb, 'reads are free' = cheap Tier 2 verbs. + +Section 7: 8 open questions for the interpreter prototype + connection +block to intent_dsl_for_meta_tooling_20260608_PLACEHOLDER. + +Appendix: full bibliography with file:line / URL references. + +Next: phase 4 (self-review + user review + final commit)." $(git log -1 --format=%H) +``` + +Update `state.toml`: +- `current_phase = 3` +- `phase_3 = { status = "completed", checkpointsha = "", name = "Write sections 4, 5, 6, 7" }` +- `t3_1` to `t3_8` = `completed` with `commit_sha` set + +Commit the state update. + +--- + +## Phase 4: Self-Review + User Review + Commit + Register + +### Task 24: Self-review per the brainstorming skill + +**Files:** +- Modify: `docs/ideation/2026-06-12-intent-based-scripting-languages.md` (fix any issues found) + +- [ ] **Step 1: Placeholder scan** + +Run: +```bash +grep -nE "TBD|TODO|FIXME|XXX|\?\?\?" docs/ideation/2026-06-12-intent-based-scripting-languages.md +``` +Expected: no matches. If any match, fix them inline. + +- [ ] **Step 2: Internal consistency check** + +- Does section 1's 4-claim list match the claims in section 5's hardware mapping? +- Does section 2's cluster enumeration match the 8 clusters in spec §3.2? +- Does section 3's 14-primitive table match the grammar in spec §3.3? +- Does section 4's 4-tier verb count (~40) match the spec's stated count? +- Does section 5's 4-anchor-claim list match the spec's claim list? +- Does section 6's 10-claim list match the spec's claim list? +- Does section 7's 8-question list match the spec's question list? + +Fix any inconsistencies inline. + +- [ ] **Step 3: Scope check** + +The report is research-only; it does NOT include: +- An interpreter +- A bridge script +- XML/JSON record formats +- The Application's function-calling +- RAG integration +- New `src/` code +- New tests +- `pyproject.toml` changes + +Verify the report does not accidentally include any of these. + +- [ ] **Step 4: Ambiguity check** + +- Are the 4 anchor claims in section 1 each *single-meaning*? (Per the convention from `data_oriented_error_handling_20260606` §3.1: "aliasing the same code with multiple meaning" is an anti-pattern; each claim should have exactly one meaning.) +- Are the 10 AI-agent claims each *single-meaning*? +- Are the 4 hardware anchor claims each *single-meaning*? +- Are the 8 open questions each *answerable* (i.e., a future track can address them)? + +Fix any issues inline. + +- [ ] **Step 5: Commit any fixes (if any were made)** + +```bash +git add docs/ideation/2026-06-12-intent-based-scripting-languages.md +git commit -m "docs(ideation): Self-review fixes for intent_dsl_survey_20260612 + +[Describe the fixes per the self-review pass]" +``` + +If no fixes were made, skip this commit. + +Update `state.toml`: +- `t4_1` = `completed` with `commit_sha` set (or `commit_sha = ""` if no commit) +- `self_review_complete = true` in `[verification]` + +### Task 25: User review + +**Files:** +- (no modifications until user approves) + +- [ ] **Step 1: Show the report to the user** + +Tell the user: +> "Report is ready for your review at `docs/ideation/2026-06-12-intent-based-scripting-languages.md`. ~[N] lines, 7 sections, 4-tier vocab with ~40 verbs, 8-cluster prior art survey, 4 hardware anchor claims, 10 AI-agent properties, 8 open questions for the follow-up interpreter prototype. Please review and let me know if you want any changes." + +- [ ] **Step 2: Wait for user response** + +The user will either: +- Approve (proceed to Task 27) +- Request changes (loop back, apply changes in a new commit, re-review) + +### Task 26: Apply user feedback (if any) + +**Files:** +- Modify: `docs/ideation/2026-06-12-intent-based-scripting-languages.md` + +- [ ] **Step 1: If user requested changes, apply them** + +Make the requested edits to the report. + +- [ ] **Step 2: Commit the changes** + +```bash +git add docs/ideation/2026-06-12-intent-based-scripting-languages.md +git commit -m "docs(ideation): Apply user review feedback to intent_dsl_survey_20260612 + +[Describe the changes per the user's feedback]" +``` + +- [ ] **Step 3: Show the updated report to the user for re-review** + +> "Applied your feedback in [section/commit reference]. Updated report is at `docs/ideation/2026-06-12-intent-based-scripting-languages.md`. Please confirm the changes are good." + +Loop back to Task 25 Step 1 if user wants more changes. + +If no user feedback was given (i.e., the user approved on first review), skip Tasks 26 and proceed to Task 27. + +### Task 27: Final commit + git note + +**Files:** +- Modify: `conductor/tracks/intent_dsl_survey_20260612/state.toml` + +- [ ] **Step 1: Verify all 12 verification criteria from spec §11 are met** + +For each criterion, confirm ✓. Update `state.toml` `[verification]` table. + +- [ ] **Step 2: Final commit (only if not already committed in Task 26)** + +If the report was already committed in Task 26, skip this commit. Otherwise: + +```bash +git add docs/ideation/2026-06-12-intent-based-scripting-languages.md +git commit -m "docs(ideation): Finalize intent_dsl_survey_20260612 report" +``` + +- [ ] **Step 3: Final git note** + +```bash +git notes add -m "intent_dsl_survey_20260612 COMPLETE + +Report finalized. All 12 verification criteria met. User approved. + +7 sections, ~[N] lines, 4-tier vocab (~40 verbs), 8-cluster prior art +survey, 4 hardware anchor claims, 10 AI-agent properties, 8 open +questions for follow-up B (interpreter prototype). + +Will be consumed by: +- nagent v2.2 (Future-Track Candidate #4: Intent-based DSL) +- intent_dsl_for_meta_tooling_20260608_PLACEHOLDER (when specced) +- future interpreter prototype (follow-up B track) + +Time-sensitive: report complete before nagent v2.2." $(git log -1 --format=%H) +``` + +Update `state.toml`: +- `status = "completed"` +- `current_phase = "complete"` +- `phase_4 = { status = "completed", checkpointsha = "", name = "Self-review + user review + commit" }` +- `t4_1` to `t4_4` = `completed` with `commit_sha` set +- All `[verification]` flags = `true` +- `git_note_attached = true` + +Commit the state update: +```bash +git add conductor/tracks/intent_dsl_survey_20260612/state.toml +git commit -m "conductor(track): Mark intent_dsl_survey_20260612 complete" +``` + +### Task 28: Update tracks.md to register track as completed + +**Files:** +- Modify: `conductor/tracks.md` + +- [ ] **Step 1: Update the table row** + +The existing row in the Active Tracks table: +``` +| 23 | A (research) | [Intent-Based Scripting Languages Survey](#track-intent-based-scripting-languages-survey-new-2026-06-12) | spec ✓, plan pending | (none — independent; NEW 2026-06-12; **non-impl research track**, **time-sensitive: report must complete before nagent v2.2**) | +``` + +Update the status to: +``` +| 23 | A (research) | [Intent-Based Scripting Languages Survey](#track-intent-based-scripting-languages-survey-new-2026-06-12) | **complete** (~[N] lines, 7 sections) | (none — independent; NEW 2026-06-12; **non-impl research track**, **time-sensitive: report complete before nagent v2.2**) | +``` + +- [ ] **Step 2: Move the track section to the "Recently Completed" section** + +Find the section "Recently Completed (2026-06-06 to 2026-06-10)" (or wherever the existing convention is) and add a new entry. The existing recently-completed format is: +``` +#### Track: [Name] `[COMPLETE YYYY-MM-DD]` +*Link: [./tracks//](./tracks//), Spec: [.../spec.md], Plan: [.../plan.md]* +*Status: ...* +``` + +Add the new track at the top of the recently-completed section: +``` +#### Track: Intent-Based Scripting Languages Survey `[COMPLETE 2026-06-12]` +*Link: [./tracks/intent_dsl_survey_20260612/](./tracks/intent_dsl_survey_20260612/), Spec: [./tracks/intent_dsl_survey_20260612/spec.md](./tracks/intent_dsl_survey_20260612/spec.md), Plan: [./tracks/intent_dsl_survey_20260612/plan.md](./tracks/intent_dsl_survey_20260612/plan.md)* +*Status: COMPLETE 2026-06-12. Report at docs/ideation/2026-06-12-intent-based-scripting-languages.md (~[N] lines, 7 sections, 4-tier vocab with ~40 verbs). Time-sensitive goal met: complete before nagent v2.2. Will be consumed by nagent v2.2 (Candidate #4) and future interpreter prototype (follow-up B).* +``` + +- [ ] **Step 3: Commit the tracks.md update** + +```bash +git add conductor/tracks.md +git commit -m "conductor(tracks): Mark intent_dsl_survey_20260612 complete" +``` + +Update `state.toml`: +- `t4_5` = `completed` with `commit_sha` set +- `tracks_md_registered = true` + +Commit the final state update: +```bash +git add conductor/tracks/intent_dsl_survey_20260612/state.toml +git commit -m "conductor(track): Mark intent_dsl_survey_20260612 final state (tracks.md registered)" +``` + +--- + +## Self-Review (against the spec) + +**1. Spec coverage:** Skim each section/requirement in the spec. + +| Spec § | Requirement | Task | Covered? | +|---|---|---|---| +| §1 | Overview (the report's purpose) | Task 1, 3 | ✓ | +| §2 | Goals (priority A + B + C + D) | All tasks | ✓ | +| §2.1 | Non-goals | implicit (no src/tests/pyproject changes) | ✓ | +| §3.1 | Section 1 (philosophy) | Task 4 | ✓ | +| §3.2 | Section 2 (8 clusters) | Tasks 5-12 | ✓ | +| §3.3 | Section 3 (grammar) | Task 13 | ✓ | +| §3.4 | Section 4 (4-tier vocab) | Tasks 15-18 | ✓ | +| §3.5 | Section 5 (hardware mapping) | Task 19 | ✓ | +| §3.6 | Section 6 (AI-agent properties) | Task 20 | ✓ | +| §3.7 | Section 7 (open questions) | Task 21 | ✓ | +| §4 | Per-section content boundaries | implicit (each task produces a section) | ✓ | +| §5 | No new Python dependencies | implicit (research-only) | ✓ | +| §6 | Testing strategy (self-review + user review) | Task 24, 25 | ✓ | +| §7 | Migration / rollout | implicit (single file addition) | ✓ | +| §8 | Risks & mitigations | implicit (covered by self-review) | ✓ | +| §9 | Open questions for Tier 2 Tech Lead | addressed by Task 14 (markdown tables vs ASCII art) | ✓ | +| §10 | Coordination with pending tracks | implicit (no blockers) | ✓ | +| §11 | Verification criteria (12 items) | Task 23 Step 2, Task 27 Step 1 | ✓ | +| §12 | Out of scope (8 items) | implicit (research-only) | ✓ | +| §13.1 | Existing project references | Appendix (Task 22) | ✓ | +| §13.2 | Track-internal references | Appendix (Task 22) | ✓ | +| §13.3 | External references | Appendix (Task 22) | ✓ | + +All 21 spec requirements are covered. + +**2. Placeholder scan:** The plan contains no "TBD", "TODO", "implement later", "fill in details", or "Similar to Task N" placeholders. Every step shows the actual content. + +**3. Type consistency:** The plan uses consistent terminology throughout: +- Track name: `intent_dsl_survey_20260612` (consistent across all tasks) +- Report path: `docs/ideation/2026-06-12-intent-based-scripting-languages.md` (consistent) +- Spec path: `conductor/tracks/intent_dsl_survey_20260612/spec.md` (consistent) +- State path: `conductor/tracks/intent_dsl_survey_20260612/state.toml` (consistent) +- Verbs are consistent with the spec's 4-tier list +- 8 prior-art clusters are consistent +- 14 grammar primitives are consistent +- 4 hardware anchor claims are consistent +- 10 AI-agent properties are consistent +- 8 open questions are consistent + +No type or method signature inconsistencies found. + +--- + +## Execution Handoff + +Plan complete and saved to `conductor/tracks/intent_dsl_survey_20260612/plan.md`. 28 tasks across 4 phases. + +The track is research-only, so the typical "subagent-driven-development" workflow (which dispatches a fresh subagent per task) is less applicable than for a code track. The plan is more naturally executed **inline by a single Tier 2 Tech Lead** with periodic checkpoints. + +**Recommended execution: Inline by a single Tier 2 Tech Lead.** Phases 1-3 are self-directed (reading + writing). Phase 4 is the user-approval gate. + +**Alternatively: Subagent-Driven per task.** If the user prefers, each task (or each cluster write) can be dispatched to a fresh subagent. This is slower per task but cleaner for context isolation. Recommended for: Tasks 6-12 (the 7 cluster writes, each can be a subagent dispatch). + +**Decision is yours. The plan can be executed either way.**