Per 2026-06-07 user feedback during test_suite cleanup:
"if the intent is to annotate a known failure, fine. But that
known failure must be addressed with priority."
New section between "Per-Task Decision Protocol" and
"Documentation Refresh Protocol" makes the policy explicit:
- Skip markers are DOCUMENTATION, not avoidance
- They're useful for opt-in integration tests, unimplemented
features, or feature-flag-gated code
- They're NOT useful for pre-existing failures, "I don't
understand this" issues, or racy tests the agent doesn't want
to debug
- When adding a marker, MUST document the underlying issue AND
what the fix would be
- When the fix is in-session reachable, FIX IT INSTEAD of
skipping — limited context is not an excuse
Includes a 4-question review checklist before adding a skip.
References the existing AGENTS.md "Use skip markers as excuse to
AVOID" rule so the two policies don't drift.
All additive; no breaking changes to existing content. Derived from gaps
observed during the 2026-06-06 planning session (5 tracks spec'd +
planned end-to-end).
**AGENTS.md (1 new section, 16 lines):**
- Compaction Recovery - explicit recovery path for a new agent
picking up mid-track (read the digest, check state.toml, run audits,
resume from next unchecked task). Cross-references the
workflow-level 'Compaction Recovery' section.
**conductor/workflow.md (6 new sections, 145 lines):**
- Planning Session Workflow - documents the brainstorming -> spec ->
plan flow used 5x this session; mandates spec approval before plan;
notes the plan is the only artifact the implementer reads.
- Track Dependencies and Execution Order - verify the blocked_by
chain in metadata.json before starting; topological sort gives the
recommended execution order (recorded in PLANNING_DIGEST).
- State.toml Template - canonical structure (meta / blocked_by /
blocks / phases / tasks / verification / track-specific) so future
tracks have a consistent shape.
- Per-Task Decision Protocol - small decisions (cosmetic) decide
yourself; large decisions (architectural) STOP and report; regressions
STOP and report. The boundary is 'does this require a new spec or
plan update?'.
- Documentation Refresh Protocol - after a track ships, identify
affected guides (grep for renamed/moved symbols), update them, add
new guides for new modules, add styleguides for new conventions.
The 'post-tracks documentation' pattern is repeatable; tracks that
only update code are incomplete.
- Audit Script Policy - whenever a track introduces a new convention
that can be statically checked, add an audit script in scripts/
with --help / --json / strict modes. The audit + CI gate pair is
the convention-enforcement mechanism; 3 existing audits
(audit_main_thread_imports, audit_weak_types, check_test_toml_paths)
are the precedent.
All sections reference existing project files (brainstorming skill,
writing-plans skill, audit scripts, tracks.md, the existing 5 new
tracks' spec.md files, PLANNING_DIGEST_20260606.md).
No code changes. Documentation only. ~160 lines total added.
mma_exec.py changes:
- get_role_documents: Tier 1 now gets docs/guide_architecture.md + guide_mma.md
(was: only product.md). Tier 2 gets same (was: only tech-stack + workflow).
Tier 3 gets guide_architecture.md (was: only workflow.md — workers modifying
gui_2.py had zero knowledge of threading model). Tier 4 gets guide_architecture.md
(was: nothing).
- Tier 3 system directive: Added ARCHITECTURE REFERENCE callout, CRITICAL
THREADING RULE (never write GUI state from background thread), TASK FORMAT
instruction (follow WHERE/WHAT/HOW/SAFETY from surgical tasks), and
py_get_definition to tool list.
- Tier 4 system directive: Added ARCHITECTURE REFERENCE callout and instruction
to trace errors through thread domains documented in guide_architecture.md.
conductor/workflow.md changes:
- Red Phase delegation prompt: Replaced 'with a prompt to create tests' with
surgical prompt format example showing WHERE/WHAT/HOW/SAFETY.
- Green Phase delegation prompt: Replaced 'with a highly specific prompt' with
surgical prompt format example with exact line refs and API calls.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Rewrites comprehensive_gui_ux_20260228 spec and plan using deep analysis of
the actual gui_2.py implementation (3078 lines). The previous spec asked to
implement features that already exist (Track Browser, DAG tree, epic planning,
approval dialogs, token table, performance monitor). The new spec:
- Documents 15 already-implemented features with exact line references
- Identifies 8 actual gaps (tier stream panels, DAG editing, cost tracking,
conductor lifecycle forms, track-scoped discussions, approval indicators,
track proposal editing, stream scrollability)
- Rewrites all 5 phases with surgical task descriptions referencing exact
gui_2.py line ranges, function names, and data structures
- Each task specifies the precise imgui API calls to use
- References docs/guide_architecture.md for threading constraints
- References docs/guide_mma.md for Ticket/Track data structures
Also adds architecture documentation fallback references to:
- conductor/workflow.md (new principle #9)
- conductor/product.md (new Architecture Reference section)
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
ed