Distills what made this session's track specs high-quality into reusable methodology for both Claude and Gemini Tier 1 orchestrators: Key additions to conductor-new-track.md: - MANDATORY Step 2: Deep Codebase Audit before writing any spec - 'Current State Audit' section template (Already Implemented + Gaps) - 6 rules for writing worker-ready tasks (WHERE/WHAT/HOW/SAFETY) - Anti-patterns section (vague specs, no line refs, no audit, etc.) - Architecture doc fallback references Key additions to mma-tier1-orchestrator.md (Claude + Gemini): - 'The Surgical Methodology' section with 6 protocols - Spec template with REQUIRED sections (Current State Audit is mandatory) - Plan template with REQUIRED task format (file:line refs + API calls) - Root cause analysis requirement for fix tracks - Cross-track dependency mapping requirement - Added py_get_definition to Gemini's tool list (was missing) The core insight: the quality gap between this session's output and previous track specs came from (1) reading actual code before writing specs, (2) listing what EXISTS before what's MISSING, and (3) specifying exact locations and APIs in tasks so lesser models don't have to search or guess. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
175 lines
6.1 KiB
Markdown
175 lines
6.1 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
description: Initialize a new conductor track with spec, plan, and metadata
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# /conductor-new-track
|
|
|
|
Create a new track in the conductor system. This is a Tier 1 (Orchestrator) operation.
|
|
The quality of the spec and plan directly determines whether Tier 3 workers can execute
|
|
without confusion. Vague specs produce vague implementations.
|
|
|
|
## Prerequisites
|
|
- Read `conductor/product.md` and `conductor/product-guidelines.md` for product alignment
|
|
- Read `conductor/tech-stack.md` for technology constraints
|
|
- Consult architecture docs in `docs/` when the track touches core systems:
|
|
- `docs/guide_architecture.md`: Threading, events, AI client, HITL mechanism
|
|
- `docs/guide_tools.md`: MCP tools, Hook API, ApiHookClient
|
|
- `docs/guide_mma.md`: Tickets, tracks, DAG engine, worker lifecycle
|
|
- `docs/guide_simulations.md`: Test framework, mock provider, verification patterns
|
|
|
|
## Steps
|
|
|
|
### 1. Gather Information
|
|
Ask the user for:
|
|
- **Track name**: descriptive, snake_case (e.g., `add_auth_system`)
|
|
- **Track type**: `feat`, `fix`, `refactor`, `chore`
|
|
- **Description**: one-line summary
|
|
- **Requirements**: functional requirements for the spec
|
|
|
|
### 2. MANDATORY: Deep Codebase Audit
|
|
|
|
**This step is what separates useful specs from useless ones.**
|
|
|
|
Before writing a single line of spec, you MUST audit the actual codebase to understand
|
|
what already exists. Use the Research-First Protocol:
|
|
|
|
1. **Map the target area**: Use `py_get_code_outline` on every file the track will touch.
|
|
Identify existing functions, classes, and their line ranges.
|
|
2. **Read key implementations**: Use `py_get_definition` on functions that are relevant
|
|
to the track's goals. Understand their signatures, data structures, and control flow.
|
|
3. **Search for existing work**: Use `Grep` to find symbols, patterns, or partial
|
|
implementations that may already address some requirements.
|
|
4. **Check recent changes**: Use `get_git_diff` on target files to understand what's
|
|
been modified recently and by which tracks.
|
|
|
|
**Output of this step**: A "Current State Audit" section listing:
|
|
- What already exists (with file:line references)
|
|
- What's missing (the actual gaps this track fills)
|
|
- What's partially implemented and needs enhancement
|
|
|
|
### 3. Create Track Directory
|
|
```
|
|
conductor/tracks/{track_name}_{YYYYMMDD}/
|
|
```
|
|
Use today's date in YYYYMMDD format.
|
|
|
|
### 4. Create metadata.json
|
|
```json
|
|
{
|
|
"track_id": "{track_name}_{YYYYMMDD}",
|
|
"type": "{feat|fix|refactor|chore}",
|
|
"status": "new",
|
|
"created_at": "{ISO8601}",
|
|
"updated_at": "{ISO8601}",
|
|
"description": "{description}"
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### 5. Create index.md
|
|
```markdown
|
|
# Track {track_name}_{YYYYMMDD} Context
|
|
|
|
- [Specification](./spec.md)
|
|
- [Implementation Plan](./plan.md)
|
|
- [Metadata](./metadata.json)
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### 6. Create spec.md — The Surgical Specification
|
|
|
|
The spec MUST include these sections:
|
|
|
|
```markdown
|
|
# Track Specification: {Title}
|
|
|
|
## Overview
|
|
{What this track delivers and WHY — 2-3 sentences max}
|
|
|
|
## Current State Audit (as of {latest_commit_sha})
|
|
### Already Implemented (DO NOT re-implement)
|
|
- **{Feature}** (`{function_name}`, {file}:{lines}): {what it does}
|
|
- ...
|
|
|
|
### Gaps to Fill (This Track's Scope)
|
|
1. **{Gap}**: {What's missing, with reference to where it should go}
|
|
2. ...
|
|
|
|
## Goals
|
|
{Numbered list — crisp, no fluff}
|
|
|
|
## Functional Requirements
|
|
### {Requirement Group}
|
|
- {Specific requirement referencing actual data structures, function names, dict keys}
|
|
- ...
|
|
|
|
## Non-Functional Requirements
|
|
- Thread safety constraints (reference guide_architecture.md if applicable)
|
|
- Performance targets
|
|
- No new dependencies unless justified
|
|
|
|
## Architecture Reference
|
|
- {Link to relevant docs/guide_*.md section}
|
|
|
|
## Out of Scope
|
|
- {Explicit exclusions}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Critical rules for specs:**
|
|
- NEVER describe a feature to implement without first checking if it exists
|
|
- ALWAYS include the "Current State Audit" section with line references
|
|
- ALWAYS link to relevant architecture docs
|
|
- Reference actual variable names, dict keys, and class names from the codebase
|
|
|
|
### 7. Create plan.md — The Surgical Plan
|
|
|
|
Each task must be specific enough that a Tier 3 worker on a lightweight model
|
|
can execute it without needing to understand the overall architecture.
|
|
|
|
```markdown
|
|
# Implementation Plan: {Title}
|
|
|
|
Architecture reference: [docs/guide_architecture.md](../../docs/guide_architecture.md)
|
|
|
|
## Phase 1: {Phase Name}
|
|
Focus: {One-sentence scope}
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Task 1.1: {SURGICAL description — see rules below}
|
|
- [ ] Task 1.2: ...
|
|
- [ ] Task 1.N: Write tests for {what Phase 1 changed}
|
|
- [ ] Task 1.X: Conductor - User Manual Verification (Protocol in workflow.md)
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Rules for writing tasks:**
|
|
|
|
1. **Reference exact locations**: "In `_render_mma_dashboard` (gui_2.py:2700-2701)"
|
|
not "in the dashboard."
|
|
2. **Specify the API**: "Use `imgui.progress_bar(value, ImVec2(-1, 0), label)`"
|
|
not "add a progress bar."
|
|
3. **Name the data**: "Read from `self.mma_streams` dict, keys prefixed with `'Tier 3'`"
|
|
not "display the streams."
|
|
4. **Describe the change shape**: "Replace the single text box with four collapsible sections"
|
|
not "improve the display."
|
|
5. **State thread safety**: "Push via `_pending_gui_tasks` with lock" when the task
|
|
involves cross-thread data.
|
|
6. **For bug fixes**: List specific root cause candidates with code-level reasoning,
|
|
not "investigate and fix."
|
|
7. **Each phase ends with**: A test task and a verification task.
|
|
|
|
### 8. Commit
|
|
```
|
|
conductor(track): Initialize track '{track_name}'
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Anti-Patterns (DO NOT do these)
|
|
|
|
- **Spec that describes features without checking if they exist** → produces duplicate work
|
|
- **Task that says "implement X" without saying WHERE or HOW** → worker guesses wrong
|
|
- **Plan with no line references** → worker wastes tokens searching
|
|
- **Spec with no architecture doc links** → worker misunderstands threading/data model
|
|
- **Tasks scoped too broadly** → worker tries to do too much, fails
|
|
- **No "Current State Audit"** → entire track may be re-implementing existing code
|
|
|
|
## Important
|
|
- Do NOT start implementing — track initialization only
|
|
- Implementation is done via `/conductor-implement`
|
|
- Each task should be scoped for a single Tier 3 Worker delegation
|