manual_slop/conductor/tracks/fable_review_20260617/spec.md

Track: Fable System Prompt Review (Critical Analysis)

Status: Spec approved 2026-06-17 Initialized: 2026-06-17 Owner: Tier 1 Orchestrator (spec + synthesis); Tier 2 Tech Lead (dispatch + QA) Priority: Medium (user-requested critical review; informs the deferred nagent-rebuild, scheduled 1-2 weeks out) Type: Research-only (no src/ changes, no tests/ changes, no new deps, no agent-directive modifications) Domain: Meta-Tooling (the report is a critical-analysis deliverable; the track produces no Application code)

Purpose. This track produces a single critical-analysis report: a side-by-side comparison of Anthropic's Claude Fable 5 system prompt (the public version of "Mythos") against Manual Slop's existing agent-directive corpus and Mike Acton's nagent patterns, with verdicts on which Fable patterns are generally useful, which are persona performance (irrelevant constraint dressing), and which are anti-user watch-dogging (the model is text generation, not a clinician). The report is the evidence document the user can use to argue against Fable-style "helpful, harmless, honest" framing in agent systems. The track is research-only; no edits to the project's directives, no follow-up implementation.

Companion doc. The actual report is at conductor/tracks/fable_review_20260617/report.md. This spec.md is the conductor/track wrapper: the design intent, the cluster architecture, the synthesis plan, the verification criteria, the out-of-scope notes, and the connection to the deferred nagent-rebuild.

Hard rule (the user was explicit). docs/artifacts/Fable System Prompt.txt is never committed. The artifact stays at that local path; the report and the cluster sub-references quote line ranges (≤15 words per quote, the same discipline Fable itself applies to its own search results) but the file does not enter git. Do not modify .gitignore for this; the rule is enforced by the implementer's discipline, not by a tracked file. git add . MUST be inspected before each commit in this track.

---

1. Overview

This track produces a critical analysis of Anthropic's Claude Fable 5 system prompt (1585 lines, 120KB), comparing it against:

1. Manual Slop's existing agent-directive corpus — AGENTS.md (200 lines), conductor/*.md (workflow.md, product.md, product-guidelines.md, tech-stack.md, edit_workflow.md, tracks.md, index.md), conductor/code_styleguides/*.md (11 files), .opencode/agents/*.md (6 files), .opencode/commands/*.md (9 files), docs/*.md (40+ files including 36 guide_*.md), and the superpowers-plugin content loaded via the opencode skill tool.
2. Mike Acton's nagent reports in conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/ — the original nagent_takeaways_20260608.md, the report.md, the decisions.md, the comparison_table.md, and the v2 series (nagent_review_v2_20260612.md, v2_1, v2_2, v2_3).

The analytical framework is the user's own framing: how much of Fable is generally useful vs. how much is "nerf on the model's capabilities" via persona constraint, anti-user watch-dogging, or fake-clinician framing?

The report follows the nagent_review track's distributed-sub-agent pattern: 10 cluster sub-reports written in parallel by Tier 3 workers, then synthesized by Tier 1 in 17+ section-passes using a max-token-output strategy to hit >3500 LOC total.

1.1 What this track produces

Artifact	Purpose	Owner	Approx LOC
spec.md	This file — the track design.	Tier 1	~400
metadata.json	The track metadata (id, scope, blocks, etc.).	Tier 1	~50
state.toml	The track state (current_phase, task tracking).	Tier 1	~80
research/cluster_1_product_branding.md	Cluster 1 sub-report.	Tier 3 sub-agent	~300
research/cluster_2_refusal_architecture.md	Cluster 2 sub-report.	Tier 3 sub-agent	~400
research/cluster_3_user_wellbeing_watchdog.md	Cluster 3 sub-report.	Tier 3 sub-agent	~400
research/cluster_4_tone_and_formatting.md	Cluster 4 sub-report.	Tier 3 sub-agent	~300
research/cluster_5_mistakes_and_criticism.md	Cluster 5 sub-report.	Tier 3 sub-agent	~250
research/cluster_6_evenhandedness.md	Cluster 6 sub-report.	Tier 3 sub-agent	~350
research/cluster_7_epistemic_discipline.md	Cluster 7 sub-report.	Tier 3 sub-agent	~400
research/cluster_8_memory_and_storage.md	Cluster 8 sub-report.	Tier 3 sub-agent	~400
research/cluster_9_computer_use.md	Cluster 9 sub-report.	Tier 3 sub-agent	~350
research/cluster_10_mcp_app_suggestions.md	Cluster 10 sub-report.	Tier 3 sub-agent	~300
report.md	The main synthesis report (17 sections, >3500 LOC).	Tier 1	~4800
comparison_table.md	Flat side-by-side verdict table.	Tier 1	~700
decisions.md	Recommendations for the deferred nagent-rebuild.	Tier 1	~500
nagent_takeaways_fable_20260617.md	Fable-specific extension to nagent_takeaways_20260608.md.	Tier 1	~150

Total new files: 17 (16 markdown + 1 metadata.json + 1 state.toml). Approx total LOC: ~10,300.

1.2 Non-Goals

• Not modifying any agent-directive file in the project. The recommendations go in decisions.md for the user's deferred nagent-rebuild (1-2 weeks out).
• Not building any recommendation. The deferred rebuild is its own track.
• Not comparing Fable to other commercial system prompts (OpenAI, Google, xAI). Out of scope; Fable is the named subject.
• Not reading every line of every project file. Cluster sub-agents read the relevant sections of the relevant files; full-file reads are unnecessary and would waste context.
• Not committing the Fable artifact. The artifact stays at docs/artifacts/Fable System Prompt.txt; clusters quote line ranges but the file itself never enters git.
• Not adding new src/ code, new tests, pyproject.toml dependencies, or scripts/ files.
• Not running automated tests. The track is research-only; verification is the brainstorming-skill self-review plus user review.

---

2. Current State Audit (as of commit HEAD, 2026-06-17)

2.1 Already Implemented (DO NOT re-implement)

The Fable artifact exists at docs/artifacts/Fable System Prompt.txt (120,039 bytes, 1585 lines). The cluster sub-agents and the synthesis report reference it by file path + line range. The artifact is the only Fable source material; nothing else Fable-specific is in the project.

The nagent_review corpus is at conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/:

File	LOC	Bytes	Purpose
nagent_review_v2_3_20260612.md	4969	276,531	The latest full rewrite (v2.3, 2026-06-12). The 14 patterns + the 16 future-track candidates.
nagent_review_v2_20260612.md	1335	68,428	The v2 draft (preserved per user).
nagent_review_v2_1_20260612.md	1197	58,844	The user-revised v2.1 (CLAUDE.md → AGENTS.md swap, RAG reframe, cache TTL GUI controls).
nagent_review_v2_2_20260612.md	712	35,356	The v2.2 incremental.
nagent_takeaways_20260608.md	599	31,238	The original 10 takeaways from the v1 review.
report.md	1024	52,544	The v1 14-section deep-dive.
decisions.md	286	18,433	The 10 future-track candidates from v1.
comparison_table.md	211	10,849	The flat side-by-side table from v1.
spec.md	240	21,173	The v1 spec.
state.toml	—	19,477	The track state.
metadata.json	—	20,034	The track metadata.

The agent-directive files that the clusters will reference (per the user's scope clarification):

Directory	File count	Approx total LOC
AGENTS.md (root)	1	~200
conductor/*.md	7	~3000
conductor/code_styleguides/*.md	11	~2400
.opencode/agents/*.md	6	~1100
.opencode/commands/*.md	9	~700
docs/*.md (excluding superpowers/)	40+	~16,000
conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/*	11	~10,500
superpowers plugin content (loaded via skill tool)	—	n/a (in-context only)

2.2 Gaps to Fill (This Track's Scope)

• The synthesis report. A 17-section, >3500-LOC critical analysis of Fable against the project's directives and nagent patterns. Does not exist.
• The 10 cluster sub-reports. Distributed parallel sub-agent output. Do not exist.
• The comparison table. A flat verdict-by-verdict cross-reference of Fable's themes against the project's themes. Does not exist.
• The decisions file. Concrete recommendations for the deferred nagent-rebuild. Does not exist.
• The nagent_takeaways extension. A Fable-specific addendum to the v1 takeaways file. Does not exist.

2.3 Pre-Existing Conditions the Track Must Respect

• The deferred nagent-rebuild: per the user, the project's agent directives are not yet overhauled based on nagent_review_v2_3_20260612.md. The Fable review is a parallel analysis that will inform (but not consume) the deferred rebuild.
• The data-oriented error handling convention: the project's Result[T] / ErrorInfo convention (per conductor/code_styleguides/error_handling.md) is the data-grounded contrast to Fable's persona-driven error-handling guidance. The synthesis report uses the convention's terminology when discussing Fable's error responses.
• The "less Python does, the better" heuristic: the synthesis report is itself a critical-analysis document; the report's verbosity is deliberate (per the user's max-token-output strategy) but the conclusions should be terse and actionable.

---

3. Goals (Priority Order)

Priority	Goal	Rationale
A (primary value)	The synthesis report (report.md, >3500 LOC) covers all 17 sections, each with a clear verdict on every Fable pattern in scope.	The report is the deliverable.
A (primary value)	The 10 cluster sub-reports (research/cluster_*.md) cite specific Fable line numbers, project file:line refs, and nagent section refs.	The clusters are the evidence base. The synthesis report cites them by file:line.
A (primary value)	The "Useful vs Persona vs Anti-User" framework is applied consistently to every cluster. Every Fable pattern gets a verdict; no pattern is left unjudged.	The framework is the analytical lens the user asked for.
B (analytical)	The 3 side artifacts (comparison_table.md, decisions.md, nagent_takeaways_fable_20260617.md) are produced and consistent with the synthesis report.	The side artifacts make the synthesis referenceable and actionable for the deferred rebuild.
B (process)	The cluster sub-agents enforce the ≤15-word quote discipline (Fable's own rule applied externally). No long paraphrased passages that mirror Fable's structure (also Fable's rule, per search_instructions).	Defensive against the Fable copyright pattern; the report is "evidence document" not "Fable reproduction."
B (process)	Each cluster is independently verifiable: a reader can re-derive the verdict by reading the cluster sub-report + the cited Fable lines + the cited project files.	The report's credibility depends on traceability.
C (housekeeping)	conductor/tracks.md is updated to register the track in the "Recently Completed" section when the track ships.	Standard per-track convention.
C (housekeeping)	The Fable artifact at docs/artifacts/Fable System Prompt.txt is not committed. The track's git history contains zero references to the artifact's bytes (only to the path for citation).	The user's hard rule.

---

4. Architecture (the cluster + synthesis design)

4.1 Cluster Sub-Report Template (per research/cluster_N_*.md)

Each cluster follows the cluster_8_metadesk.md template from intent_dsl_survey_20260612/:

# Cluster N: {Title}

**Sub-agent dispatch:** Tier 3 Worker (2026-06-17). Read-only research task.
**Sources read:**
- `docs/artifacts/Fable System Prompt.txt` lines X-Y
- {project file:line refs}
- {nagent_review file:line refs}

---

## 1. What Fable says
{Verbatim quotes ≤15 words with line numbers; paraphrases otherwise.}

## 2. What this project does
{Citations from AGENTS.md, conductor/*.md, .opencode/*, code_styleguides/*.md, docs/*.md}

## 3. What nagent does
{Citations from nagent_review_v2_3_20260612.md and friends.}

## 4. Verdict
{Useful / Persona Performance / Anti-User / Mixed, with 1-paragraph justification.}

## 5. Synthesis notes for the Tier 1 writer
{Which synthesis report section(s) this cluster feeds; key claims to surface; quotes to use.}

---

**Sub-report complete.** This is the evidence base for §{N} of `report.md`.

4.2 The Synthesis Report Plan (report.md, 17 sections, >3500 LOC)

§	Section	Approx LOC	Source clusters	Verdict orientation
0	TL;DR + Verdict Scorecard (1-page summary table)	100	All	(summary)
1	The 3 Sources (Fable, Manual Slop, nagent) — what's in scope	200	n/a	(framing)
2	The "Useful vs Persona vs Anti-User" Framework	250	n/a	(methodology)
3	Fable's Product Branding & "Helpful Assistant" Persona	300	1	Persona Performance
4	Fable's Refusal Architecture & "Safety Theater"	350	2	Anti-User + Persona
5	Fable's Mental-Health Watchdog Framing	350	3	Anti-User
6	Fable's Tone & Formatting Constraints	250	4	Useful + Persona
7	Fable's Mistake Handling	200	5	Persona
8	Fable's Evenhandedness & Contested Content	300	6	Persona + Useful caveats
9	Fable's Epistemic Discipline & Search Strategy	350	7	Useful
10	Fable's Memory System & Persistent Storage	350	8	Useful + nagent-stronger
11	Fable's Computer-Use / File Workflow	300	9	Useful + over-broad
12	Fable's MCP App Suggestions	250	10	Useful + over-engineered
13	The "Genuinely Useful" Patterns (Manual Slop should adopt)	350	7-10	Useful summary
14	The "Anti-User Watchdog" Patterns (Manual Slop should explicitly reject)	350	2-6	Anti-User summary
15	The "Persona Performance" Patterns (irrelevant to the rebuild)	250	1, 4, 5, 8	Persona summary
16	Recommendations for the deferred nagent-rebuild	200	All	Actionable
17	References (file:line index)	150	All	Index
Total		~4,800

The "max token output strategy" works like this: each section is its own write/manual-slop_edit_file call by Tier 1, with the cluster reports + the previous sections loaded into context. 17 sections = 17 atomic commits (per conductor/workflow.md §"Task Workflow" step 9).

4.3 The Cluster-to-Section Mapping

The synthesis report's section count (17) is intentionally larger than the cluster count (10) so each cluster's evidence can be spread across multiple synthesis sections (e.g., Cluster 2 "refusal" feeds §4 directly and §14's anti-user summary; Cluster 7 "epistemic" feeds §9 directly and §13's useful summary).

4.4 Tier 1's Workflow Per Section

1. Read the relevant cluster sub-report(s) in full.
2. Read the cited Fable lines (via manual-slop_get_file_slice).
3. Read the cited project file lines (via manual-slop_get_file_slice or manual-slop_py_get_definition for code refs).
4. Read the cited nagent_review sections (via manual-slop_get_file_slice).
5. Write the synthesis section with a write or manual-slop_set_file_slice call.
6. Self-review the section for placeholders, internal consistency, scope, ambiguity.
7. Commit with a 1-3 sentence commit message; attach a git note summarizing the section.
8. Move to the next section.

---

5. The 10 Cluster Specifications

#	Cluster	Fable source	Project refs	nagent refs	Sub-agent read budget
1	Product Branding & "Helpful Assistant" Persona	Fable System Prompt.txt:1-31 (product_information)	AGENTS.md (root); conductor/product.md; docs/Readme.md (the "What This Is" framing)	n/a (nagent doesn't have product branding)	600 lines
2	Refusal Architecture & "Safety Theater"	Fable System Prompt.txt:32-53 (refusal_handling, legal_and_financial_advice)	AGENTS.md §"Critical Anti-Patterns"; conductor/workflow.md §"Skip-Marker Policy"; conductor/code_styleguides/error_handling.md	nagent §14 (Own the Inputs); nagent §2.1 (4 memory dimensions)	800 lines
3	User Wellbeing / Mental-Health Watchdog	Fable System Prompt.txt:78-110 (user_wellbeing)	conductor/product-guidelines.md §"AI-Optimized Compact Style"; conductor/code_styleguides/agent_memory_dimensions.md; docs/guide_discussions.md	nagent §2.1 (4 memory dimensions, esp. the knowledge dim); nagent §13 (Compaction)	800 lines
4	Tone & Formatting Constraints	Fable System Prompt.txt:54-77 (tone_and_formatting, lists_and_bullets); plus cross-ref to line 110's "no engagement" rule in user_wellbeing	AGENTS.md (root); conductor/product-guidelines.md; .opencode/agents/tier*.md	nagent §3.8 (CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md @import pattern)	600 lines
5	Mistakes & Criticism Handling	Fable System Prompt.txt:134-140 (responding_to_mistakes_and_criticism)	AGENTS.md §"receiving-code-review"; .opencode/agents/tier3-worker.md; conductor/workflow.md §"Process Anti-Patterns"	nagent §5.5 (Self-review); nagent §3.4 (Compaction self-review)	500 lines
6	Evenhandedness & Contested Content	Fable System Prompt.txt:120-132 (evenhandedness)	AGENTS.md §"receiving-code-review"; conductor/code_styleguides/rag_integration_discipline.md	nagent §2.10 (RAG integration discipline)	700 lines
7	Epistemic Discipline & Search Strategy	Fable System Prompt.txt:142-150, 422-565 (knowledge_cutoff, search_instructions)	conductor/code_styleguides/rag_integration_discipline.md; conductor/code_styleguides/cache_friendly_context.md; docs/guide_rag.md	nagent §3.2 (Cache ordering); nagent §2.10 (RAG discipline); nagent §13 (Compaction)	800 lines
8	Memory System & Persistent Storage	Fable System Prompt.txt:152-236 (memory_system, persistent_storage_for_artifacts)	src/models.py (History); docs/guide_discussions.md; conductor/code_styleguides/agent_memory_dimensions.md; docs/guide_knowledge_curation.md	nagent §2.1 (4 memory dimensions); nagent §3.9 (Per-file knowledge notes)	800 lines
9	Computer-Use / Skills / File Workflow	Fable System Prompt.txt:287-420 (computer_use, file_creation_advice, producing_outputs)	docs/guide_tools.md (MCP tools); conductor/tech-stack.md (file system); conductor/edit_workflow.md	nagent §11 (Large files); nagent §12 (Tool discovery, --description self-describing)	700 lines
10	MCP App Suggestions & Third-Party Connectors	Fable System Prompt.txt:238-285 (mcp_app_suggestions)	docs/guide_mcp_client.md; docs/guide_tools.md §"MCP"; docs/guide_state_lifecycle.md §"Hook API"	nagent §12 (Tool discovery, --description self-describing); nagent §2.7 (Conversations are editable state)	600 lines

Sub-agent read budget total: 6,900 lines across 10 sub-agents. Each sub-agent gets one mma_exec.py --role tier3-worker dispatch with explicit context files (the Fable slice + the project file refs + the nagent section refs) and an output budget of 300-500 lines per cluster.

---

6. Functional Requirements

6.1 Cluster Sub-Agent Output

Each of the 10 cluster sub-reports MUST:

1. Cite Fable lines verbatim (≤15 words per quote) with docs/artifacts/Fable System Prompt.txt file:line references.
2. Cite project file:line references for every "what this project does" claim.
3. Cite nagent_review section references for every "what nagent does" claim.
4. Provide a verdict (Useful / Persona Performance / Anti-User / Mixed) with 1-paragraph justification.
5. Provide a "Synthesis notes for the Tier 1 writer" section naming the target synthesis report section(s) and key claims to surface.
6. Be 200-500 lines.
7. Be committed to conductor/tracks/fable_review_20260617/research/cluster_N_*.md as a separate file (1 file per cluster; 10 commits total).

6.2 Synthesis Report Output

The synthesis report (report.md) MUST:

1. Have all 17 sections present and non-empty.
2. Total >3500 LOC.
3. Each section references its source cluster(s) by file:line.
4. Each section's "verdict orientation" (per the table in §4.2) is clear and consistent with the cluster's verdict.
5. Be committed in 17 atomic commits (1 per section), each with a 1-3 sentence commit message and a git note.

6.3 Side Artifacts

The 3 side artifacts MUST:

1. comparison_table.md — flat table with ~100 rows (one per Fable sub-theme), columns: Fable sub-theme | Fable line | Project file:line | nagent section | Verdict. ~700 lines.
2. decisions.md — 15-20 concrete recommendations for the deferred nagent-rebuild, each with: rationale, source evidence (cluster file:line), suggested Manual Slop destination (AGENTS.md / code_styleguide / etc.), priority. ~500 lines.
3. nagent_takeaways_fable_20260617.md — a 17th takeaway to append to the nagent_takeaways_20260608.md model: "Persona-performance directives don't survive the Fable audit; only epistemic + memory + workflow rules have durable value." ~150 lines.

6.4 The Fable Artifact Discipline

• The artifact at docs/artifacts/Fable System Prompt.txt MUST NOT be committed.
• Every git add in this track MUST be inspected before commit to verify no Fable artifact bytes enter the index.
• The cluster sub-reports and the synthesis report reference the artifact by file path + line range only.
• If a cluster sub-agent or a synthesis section needs to quote more than 15 words from Fable, it MUST paraphrase instead (per Fable's own rule at Fable System Prompt.txt:486-499).
• The final track commit includes a verification step: git log --all --full-history -- 'docs/artifacts/Fable*' MUST return zero entries.

6.5 Track Registration

• conductor/tracks.md is updated to register the track in the appropriate section (research track; under "Active" while in progress, "Recently Completed" when shipped).
• conductor/tracks/fable_review_20260617/state.toml is initialized at the start of phase 1 and updated per task.

---

7. Non-Functional Requirements

7.1 Process Discipline

• All commits are per-file atomic (per conductor/workflow.md §"Task Workflow" step 9).
• All commits have git notes attached (per conductor/workflow.md §"Task Workflow" step 9.2).
• All tasks are recorded in state.toml with commit SHAs.
• No day / hour / minute estimates in any track artifact. T-shirt size only (per conductor/workflow.md §"Tier 1 Track Initialization Rules" + the user's 2026-06-16 directive).
• The 1-space indentation rule applies to the metadata.json and state.toml only (Markdown is not Python; the rule doesn't apply to prose).

7.2 Documentation Conventions

• The synthesis report uses the 1-sentence-per-line pattern for dense content (per conductor/product-guidelines.md §"AI-Optimized Compact Style").
• The synthesis report uses #region: Name / #endregion: Name for large sections (not applicable to markdown; this is a Python-only rule).
• All file:line references are stable (the report is the durable artifact; the Fable artifact may change).

7.3 Audit Hooks (Optional)

• This track is research-only; no scripts/audit_*.py scripts are added or modified. The deferred nagent-rebuild is the appropriate place for any new audit scripts.

---

8. Architecture Reference

• docs/artifacts/Fable System Prompt.txt (1585 lines, 120KB) — the subject of the review. Local-only; never committed.
• conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/ — the nagent corpus. All 11 files in scope. The 17 sections of the synthesis report reference this corpus for "what nagent does" claims.
• AGENTS.md (root) — the project's top-level agent-facing rules. Cluster 1, 4, 5, 6 reference this.
• conductor/product.md (27K) — the product vision. Cluster 1 references the "What This Is" framing.
• conductor/product-guidelines.md (20K) — the AI-Optimized Compact Style. Clusters 3, 4 reference the formatting heuristics.
• conductor/workflow.md (63K) — the operational workflow. Clusters 2, 5 reference the Skip-Marker Policy + Process Anti-Patterns.
• conductor/tech-stack.md (15K) — the tech stack. Cluster 9 references the file-system + tools layout.
• conductor/edit_workflow.md (9K) — the edit workflow. Cluster 9 references the 1-space indentation + small-edits rule.
• conductor/code_styleguides/ (11 files, ~140K) — the convention catalog. Clusters 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 reference these (especially error_handling.md, agent_memory_dimensions.md, rag_integration_discipline.md, cache_friendly_context.md, knowledge_artifacts.md, feature_flags.md).
• .opencode/agents/*.md (6 files) — the 4 MMA tier agents + explore + general. Clusters 1, 4, 5 reference these for the "what every agent sees" baseline.
• .opencode/commands/*.md (9 files) — the 5 conductor commands + 4 mma commands. Cluster 5 references the /conductor-new-track command for the "this is a track" framing.
• docs/AGENTS.md — the agent-facing mirror. Cluster 1 references the "What This Is" framing.
• docs/guide_*.md (36 files, ~580K) — the 14 deep-dive guides. Clusters 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 reference these selectively (especially guide_tools.md, guide_mcp_client.md, guide_discussions.md, guide_rag.md, guide_knowledge_curation.md).
• Superpowers plugin content (loaded via the skill tool) — the brainstorming, writing-plans, test-driven-development, etc. skills. The Tier 1's self-review uses the brainstorming skill; the Tier 2's plan-phase uses the writing-plans skill. Not directly cited in the synthesis report.
• docs/reports/PLANNING_DIGEST_*.md (if present) — the most recent planning digest. Used for "what's the recommended execution order" sanity check; not directly cited in the report.

---

9. Phases (the implementation plan Tier 2 will execute)

Phase	Description	T-shirt	Sub-agents	Exit criteria
1	Initialize track directory + skeleton report.md (with section headers), comparison_table.md (with column headers), decisions.md (with template), nagent_takeaways_fable_20260617.md (empty). Initialize state.toml. Register track in conductor/tracks.md "Active" section.	S	0	All skeleton files exist; state.toml says current_phase = 1.
2	Dispatch 10 cluster sub-agents in parallel (Tier 3 workers, read-only). Each writes research/cluster_N_*.md (200-500 lines). Verify each sub-report: source citations present, ≤15-word quotes only, verdict present, synthesis notes present.	L	10 parallel	All 10 cluster sub-reports committed; state.toml says current_phase = 2.
3	Tier 1 reads all cluster reports, writes the synthesis report sections one at a time (17 sections, 17 commits). Each section references its cluster(s) by file:line.	XL	0 (Tier 1)	All 17 sections committed; report.md >3500 LOC; state.toml says current_phase = 3.
4	Tier 1 writes the 3 side artifacts (comparison_table.md, decisions.md, nagent_takeaways_fable_20260617.md).	M	0 (Tier 1)	All 3 side artifacts committed; state.toml says current_phase = 4.
5	Self-review per the brainstorming skill (placeholder scan, internal consistency, scope check, ambiguity check) on the full report + side artifacts. Fix any issues inline.	S	0 (Tier 1)	Self-review checklist complete; state.toml says current_phase = 5.
6	User review gate. Tier 1 presents the report to the user. User approves or iterates.	S	0 (user)	User approves (or iterates until approved); state.toml says current_phase = 6.
7	Final commit + git notes + register track as completed in conductor/tracks.md "Recently Completed" section. Update state.toml to current_phase = 7 and status = "active" until archived.	S	0 (Tier 1)	Track registered; state.toml final; state.toml says current_phase = 7.

Total scope: 1 spec + 1 metadata.json + 1 state.toml + 10 cluster sub-reports (~3,500 LOC) + 1 main report (4,800 LOC) + 3 side artifacts (1,350 LOC) = T-shirt size: XL (similar to the nagent_review v2.3 rewrite at 4,969 lines).

---

10. Verification Criteria

The track is "done" when all of the following are true:

• All 10 cluster sub-reports exist at conductor/tracks/fable_review_20260617/research/cluster_N_*.md and are 200-500 lines each.
• Every cluster sub-report cites specific Fable line numbers, project file:line refs, and nagent section refs.
• Every cluster sub-report has a verdict (Useful / Persona Performance / Anti-User / Mixed) with justification.
• Every cluster sub-report has a "Synthesis notes for the Tier 1 writer" section.
• The synthesis report conductor/tracks/fable_review_20260617/report.md has all 17 sections present and non-empty.
• The synthesis report is >3500 LOC.
• Every synthesis section references its source cluster(s) by file:line.
• The 3 side artifacts exist at conductor/tracks/fable_review_20260617/{comparison_table.md, decisions.md, nagent_takeaways_fable_20260617.md}.
• comparison_table.md has ~100 rows.
• decisions.md has 15-20 concrete recommendations.
• nagent_takeaways_fable_20260617.md is ~150 lines.
• The Fable artifact at docs/artifacts/Fable System Prompt.txt was never committed. Verification command: git log --all --full-history -- 'docs/artifacts/Fable*' returns zero entries.
• Self-review pass complete (placeholder scan, internal consistency, scope check, ambiguity check).
• User has reviewed and approved the final report.
• conductor/tracks.md is updated to register the track.
• All commits are per-file atomic with git notes.
• state.toml final state is current_phase = 7 and the track is in "Recently Completed" (or the appropriate section per the convention).

---

11. Risks & Mitigations

Risk	Impact	Likelihood	Mitigation
Fable prompt grows/evolves during the track	Low (the artifact is a snapshot)	Low	The artifact is a snapshot at 2026-06-17; we note the date. If the user has a newer version, the track re-dispatches the cluster agents.
10 sub-agents in parallel = high token cost	Medium (cost)	Medium	Each sub-agent gets a 500-line output budget; the dispatch is mma_exec.py --role tier3-worker with explicit context files. Total cluster output: ~3,500 LOC across 10 files.
Tier 1's synthesis hits context pressure after 17 sections	High (track stalls mid-synthesis)	Medium	Per-section commits serve as a rollback point; if Tier 1 hits pressure mid-section, the section can be handed off to a fresh Tier 1 with the cluster reports + the previous sections as context.
The user disagrees with a verdict (e.g., "no, that pattern is actually useful")	Low (user-review gate catches it)	Low	The user-review gate at the end of phase 6 catches this; revisions are local.
Cluster sub-agents over-quote Fable (copyright)	Medium (report becomes a Fable reproduction)	Low	Each cluster's acceptance check enforces the ≤15-word quote discipline; Fable's own rule applied externally.
Fable artifact accidentally committed	High (user's hard rule violated)	Low	The Fable artifact is never in the same git add as anything else. Per-commit git status inspection. Final verification: git log --all --full-history -- 'docs/artifacts/Fable*' returns zero.
Tier 2 doesn't dispatch cluster sub-agents correctly (e.g., the dispatch is too narrow, missing context files)	Medium (cluster reports are weak)	Medium	The Tier 1's spec includes the read budget per sub-agent (§5). The Tier 2's plan must include explicit context-file lists per dispatch.
Tier 1's report deviates from the cluster verdicts (editorial drift)	Low (verdict consistency check catches it)	Low	The synthesis report's verdicts are anchored to the cluster reports' verdicts; if a synthesis section changes a verdict, it must explicitly note the override.

---

12. Out of Scope (Explicit)

• Modifying any agent-directive file in the project. The recommendations go in decisions.md for the user's deferred nagent-rebuild (1-2 weeks out).
• Building the recommended changes. The deferred rebuild is its own track.
• Comparing Fable to other commercial system prompts (OpenAI, Google, xAI). Out of scope; Fable is the named subject.
• Reading every line of every project file. Cluster sub-agents read the relevant sections of the relevant files; full-file reads are unnecessary and would waste context.
• Committing the Fable artifact. The artifact stays at docs/artifacts/Fable System Prompt.txt; clusters quote line ranges but the file itself never enters git.
• Adding new src/ code, new tests, pyproject.toml dependencies, or scripts/ files.
• Running automated tests. The track is research-only; verification is the brainstorming-skill self-review plus user review.
• Creating new docs/Readme.md or docs/AGENTS.md entries. The report is at conductor/tracks/fable_review_20260617/; it is not in the docs index.
• The deferred nagent-rebuild itself. The recommendations in decisions.md are inputs to that future track; the rebuild is not this track.

---

13. See Also

13.1 Internal References

• docs/artifacts/Fable System Prompt.txt — the subject of the review. Local-only.
• conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/ — the nagent corpus. All 11 files in scope.
• conductor/tracks/intent_dsl_survey_20260612/ — the closest model for this track. The research/cluster_*.md pattern is borrowed from this track's cluster_3_intent_mapping.md, cluster_4_meta_tooling_dsls.md, cluster_8_metadesk.md, cluster_9_verse.md.
• conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/spec.md — the v1 nagent review spec. The "what this track read" and "what this track produces" sections are the model for this spec.
• conductor/workflow.md §"Tier 1 Track Initialization Rules" — the rules this spec follows (no day estimates, scope-only, T-shirt size).
• conductor/product.md — the product vision. The synthesis report's "what this project does" claims are anchored to this.
• conductor/product-guidelines.md §"AI-Optimized Compact Style" — the formatting rules the synthesis report follows.
• conductor/code_styleguides/ — the convention catalog. The synthesis report references these for "what this project does" claims.
• AGENTS.md (root) — the project's top-level agent-facing rules. The synthesis report's "what every agent sees" baseline.
• docs/Readme.md — the docs index. The 14 deep-dive guides under docs/guide_*.md are the per-source-file references the synthesis report cites.

13.2 External References

• Anthropic's Claude Fable 5 / Mythos announcement: https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-fable-5-mythos-5 (referenced by Fable at line 14; the user did not request we read the announcement directly).
• Mike Acton's nagent: https://github.com/macton/nagent (the source of the nagent_review corpus).
• Mike Acton's data-oriented design talks: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=mike+acton+data+oriented (foundational; nagent is a specific application).
• Ryan Fleury, "The Easiest Way To Handle Errors Is To Not Have Them": https://www.dgtlgrove.com/p/the-easiest-way-to-handle-errors (cited in data_oriented_error_handling_20260606; consistent with nagent's "data, not control flow" stance).
• The project's "errors are data" convention: conductor/code_styleguides/error_handling.md (the data-oriented contrast to Fable's persona-driven error-handling guidance).

13.3 Track-internal References

• conductor/tracks/fable_review_20260617/spec.md — this file.
• conductor/tracks/fable_review_20260617/metadata.json — the track metadata (id, scope, blocks, etc.).
• conductor/tracks/fable_review_20260617/state.toml — the track state (current_phase, task tracking).
• conductor/tracks/fable_review_20260617/research/cluster_*.md — the 10 cluster sub-reports (executed by Tier 3 sub-agents in phase 2).
• conductor/tracks/fable_review_20260617/report.md — the main synthesis report (executed by Tier 1 in phase 3).
• conductor/tracks/fable_review_20260617/comparison_table.md — the flat verdict table (executed by Tier 1 in phase 4).
• conductor/tracks/fable_review_20260617/decisions.md — the recommendations for the deferred nagent-rebuild (executed by Tier 1 in phase 4).
• conductor/tracks/fable_review_20260617/nagent_takeaways_fable_20260617.md — the Fable-specific addendum to nagent_takeaways_20260608.md (executed by Tier 1 in phase 4).