manual_slop/conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/plan_v3.md

nagent_review_v3 Implementation Plan

For agentic workers: v3 is Tier 1 sole-authored (mirroring v2.3 and fable_review_20260617). The "tasks" below describe the structure each piece of work must produce; the actual prose is written by the Tier 1 author during execution. Steps use checkbox (- [ ]) syntax for tracking.

Goal: Produce the v3 major update of the nagent review track — a fresh nagent_review_v3_20260619.md covering the 24 new nagent commits + the 2 case-study repos, plus refreshed side artifacts and a new bridge doc.

Architecture: 14 phases. Phase 1 is setup + audit. Phases 2-12 are one phase per cluster (Campaigns, Safety net, Hooks, Project-local roots, Providers, Delegation rewrite, Robustness, Operating rules, Case-study methodology, PEP case study, Collisions case study). Phase 13 refreshes the side artifacts. Phase 14 verifies the format commitment. Each cluster phase = source read → pattern identification → section write → commit + git note.

Tech Stack: Markdown (the deliverable). git for atomic per-task commits + git notes for per-task summaries. state.toml for per-task commit SHA tracking. manual-slop MCP tools for file reads (manual-slop_read_file, manual-slop_get_file_slice, manual-slop_py_get_code_outline, manual-slop_py_get_skeleton, manual-slop_py_find_usages). webfetch for the GitHub commit/PR/file fetches.

Spec pair: This plan implements spec_v3.md in the same track directory. Read the spec first; the plan is executable against the spec.

Naming convention: All v3 file basenames use 20260619 (the day the source state was captured). Filenames are absolute paths under conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/.

---

File Structure

Files created in v3

Path	Purpose
conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/plan_v3.md	This file.
conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/nagent_review_v3_20260619.md	The v3 canonical review. ~5,500-6,500 LOC. 11 cluster sections + frontmatter + reading guide + TL;DR + references.
conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/nagent_takeaways_v3_20260619.md	The v3 bridge doc. ~150 LOC. 5-part structure (TL;DR + cross-ref table + new takeaways + v2.3-superseded + sibling pointer).

Files refreshed in v3

Path	Refresh action
conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/comparison_table.md	Replace content with v3 cluster table. v2.3 content recoverable via git log -p.
conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/decisions.md	Replace content with v3 candidates (~25-30 entries + v2.3 → v3 status mapping at top). v2.3 content recoverable via git log -p.
conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/metadata.json	Refresh nagent_commits_reviewed, scope, verification_criteria, deferred_to_followup_tracks. v2.3 fields recoverable via git log -p.
conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/state.toml	Update current_phase, phases, tasks, verification as v3 phases complete.

Files NOT modified in v3

Path	Why preserved
conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/spec.md	The v2.3 spec. Historical.
conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/plan.md	The v2.3 plan. Historical.
conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/nagent_review_v2_3_20260612.md	The v2.3 canonical review. Historical.
conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/nagent_review_v2_20260612.md	v2 review. Historical.
conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/nagent_review_v2_1_20260612.md	v2.1 delta. Historical.
conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/nagent_review_v2_2_20260612.md	v2.2 delta. Historical.
conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/report.md	Original v1 review. Historical.
conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/nagent_takeaways_20260608.md	v2.3-era bridge. Unchanged.
conductor/tracks.md	Per "B. Same track" decision, no top-level changes.

File responsibility boundaries

• nagent_review_v3_20260619.md owns the 11 cluster sections + the prose around them (TL;DR, reading guide, lineage note, references).
• comparison_table.md owns the flat side-by-side table (one row per cluster + one row per existing v2.3 pattern updated).
• decisions.md owns the candidate list (v2.3 → v3 status mapping + new candidates).
• nagent_takeaways_v3_20260619.md owns the bridge to v2.3 takeaways + sibling reviews.
• metadata.json owns the machine-readable summary of v3.
• state.toml owns the per-phase/per-task progress tracking.

No file owns prose another file owns. If a section needs to reference a candidate, it cites the candidate's name + the decisions.md entry; it does NOT duplicate the candidate description.

---

Phase 1: Setup + audit

Focus: Initialize v3's track-state plumbing + audit the v2.3 baseline.

• Step 1.1: Refresh metadata.json with v3 fields

Open conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/metadata.json and add/update the following fields (preserving the v2.3 fields below them in git history):

{
  "version": "v3",
  "v3_initialized": "2026-06-19",
  "nagent_commits_reviewed": [
    "a1f0680", "023e23a", "bdfa2a6", "a4fb141", "12c35b7",
    "6b762da", "315fe9e", "65787a6", "d56f0f0", "49e07f3",
    "7a7e242", "065168c", "2edc7ee", "5075f6e", "6426a67",
    "afc7ab8", "38d3d4f", "6443d70", "c1d2cad", "f3ec090",
    "24cf16d", "199a36b", "557dd39", "54c8741"
  ],
  "nagent_reviewed_at_commit": "a1f068098c02d47c28fe9bad7dd7db0ae4af465b",
  "nagent_reviewed_at_date_utc": "2026-06-18T23:51:28Z",
  "case_study_repos": [
    {"repo": "macton/pep-copt", "url": "https://github.com/macton/pep-copt", "result": "2.04x speedup, byte-identical output"},
    {"repo": "macton/differentiable-collisions-optc", "url": "https://github.com/macton/differentiable-collisions-optc", "result": "102x speedup, distance-tolerance match contract"}
  ],
  "scope": {
    "new_files": [
      "nagent_review_v3_20260619.md",
      "nagent_takeaways_v3_20260619.md",
      "plan_v3.md"
    ],
    "modified_files": [
      "comparison_table.md",
      "decisions.md",
      "metadata.json",
      "state.toml"
    ],
    "deleted_files": []
  },
  "verification_criteria": [
    "All 11 clusters present in nagent_review_v3_20260619.md as dedicated sections",
    "Every cluster section cites >=3 source paths (commit SHA, file:line, prompts/*.md, OPTIMIZATION-LOG.md, or harness script)",
    "Clusters 9, 10, 11 cite actual prompts/create-*.md, OPTIMIZATION-LOG.md, and prove-optimized-harness.sh content (not README paraphrases)",
    "Format commitment verified: no JSON blocks in main review; 7-column tables in comparison_table.md; SSDL shape tags present; survey grammar in code examples; source-read citations present",
    "decisions.md has ~25-30 candidates with v2.3 -> v3 status mapping at top",
    "nagent_takeaways_v3_20260619.md has 5-part structure (TL;DR + cross-ref table + new takeaways + v2.3-superseded + sibling pointer)",
    "spec_v3.md + plan_v3.md committed; metadata.json refreshed; state.toml updated; tracks.md not modified",
    "One commit per cluster phase; git notes attached per task; per-task commit SHAs in state.toml"
  ],
  "deferred_to_followup_tracks": [
    "Cross-track synthesis (compare operating rules across nagent + Fable + project DOD + superpowers using-superpowers) — flagged in spec_v3.md §3.1 as a stretch goal",
    "v3 candidates in decisions.md are inputs to the user's deferred Manual Slop rebuild, not v3 itself"
  ]
}

Preserve all existing v2.3 fields. v3 fields go above; v2.3 fields go below. v2.3 content is recoverable via git log -p conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/metadata.json.

• Step 1.2: Initialize state.toml v3 fields

Open conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/state.toml. Update the current_phase to 1 and add the v3 phase/task entries below the v2.3 ones:

[meta]
track_id = "nagent_review_20260608"
name = "Mike Acton's nagent - Deep Dive on LLM Agent Architecture"
status = "active"
current_phase = 1  # Phase 1 = setup + audit
last_updated = "2026-06-19"

[v3_phases]
phase_1 = { status = "in_progress", checkpointsha = "", name = "Setup + audit" }
phase_2 = { status = "pending", checkpointsha = "", name = "Campaigns cluster (§1)" }
phase_3 = { status = "pending", checkpointsha = "", name = "Conversation safety net cluster (§2)" }
phase_4 = { status = "pending", checkpointsha = "", name = "Hooks cluster (§3)" }
phase_5 = { status = "pending", checkpointsha = "", name = "Project-local roots cluster (§4)" }
phase_6 = { status = "pending", checkpointsha = "", name = "Provider expansion cluster (§5)" }
phase_7 = { status = "pending", checkpointsha = "", name = "Delegation rewrite cluster (§6)" }
phase_8 = { status = "pending", checkpointsha = "", name = "Robustness cluster (§7)" }
phase_9 = { status = "pending", checkpointsha = "", name = "Operating rules cluster (§8)" }
phase_10 = { status = "pending", checkpointsha = "", name = "Case-study methodology cluster (§9)" }
phase_11 = { status = "pending", checkpointsha = "", name = "PEP case study cluster (§10)" }
phase_12 = { status = "pending", checkpointsha = "", name = "Collisions case study cluster (§11)" }
phase_13 = { status = "pending", checkpointsha = "", name = "Refresh side artifacts (comparison_table, decisions, takeaways)" }
phase_14 = { status = "pending", checkpointsha = "", name = "Format-commitment verification + final commit" }

[v3_tasks]
t1_1 = { status = "in_progress", commit_sha = "", description = "Refresh metadata.json with v3 fields" }
t1_2 = { status = "pending", commit_sha = "", description = "Initialize state.toml v3 fields" }
t1_3 = { status = "pending", commit_sha = "", description = "Write spec_v3.md + plan_v3.md skeleton (v3 spec already exists; this task acknowledges the spec/plan pair is committed)" }
t1_4 = { status = "pending", commit_sha = "", description = "Commit Phase 1 setup" }

[v3_verification]
v3_coverage_complete = false
v3_source_read_citations_complete = false
v3_case_study_evidence_complete = false
v3_format_commitment_verified = false
v3_decisions_count_in_range = false
v3_takeaways_bridge_complete = false
v3_track_artifacts_committed = false
v3_commits_with_notes = false

Preserve all v2.3 fields below. v3 fields are above; v2.3 fields are below.

• Step 1.3: Confirm spec_v3.md exists and is committed

Verify conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/spec_v3.md exists and is the approved spec from the brainstorming session. (If it does not exist, stop and report to the user.)

• Step 1.4: Write nagent_review_v3_20260619.md skeleton with frontmatter + reading guide

Create conductor/tracks/nagent_review_v3_20260619.md with the following skeleton:

# nagent_review_v3_20260619 — Mike Acton's nagent, the 24-commit evolution + case studies

**Status:** Draft (Phase 1 setup complete; cluster sections pending)
**Initialized:** 2026-06-19
**Owner:** Tier 1 Orchestrator (sole author)
**Spec pair:** `spec_v3.md` + `plan_v3.md` (in the same track directory)
**Lineage:** Supersedes `nagent_review_v2_3_20260612.md` (4,969 lines, the v2.3 canonical review). v2.3 is preserved as historical.

> **Reading guide.** v3 covers the 24 new nagent commits on `macton/nagent@main` between `eb6be32a` (2026-06-12) and `a1f0680` (2026-06-18), and the two case-study repos that didn't exist at v2.3 baseline: [`macton/pep-copt`](https://github.com/macton/pep-copt) and [`macton/differentiable-collisions-optc`](https://github.com/macton/differentiable-collisions-optc). The 11 clusters are: Campaigns (§1), Conversation safety net (§2), Hooks (§3), Project-local roots (§4), Provider expansion (§5), Delegation rewrite (§6), Robustness (§7), Operating rules (§8), Case-study methodology (§9), PEP case study (§10), Collisions case study (§11).

> **Lineage note.** v2.3's 14-pattern analysis stands; v3 does not delete it. Where v3 updates a v2.3 pattern, the cluster section calls out the update explicitly. Where v3 introduces a new pattern, the cluster section cites the v2.3 pattern it does NOT replace (if any).

## §0 TL;DR

(filled in by Phase 13; placeholder)

## §1 Campaigns

(filled in by Phase 2)

## §2 Conversation safety net

(filled in by Phase 3)

## §3 Hooks

(filled in by Phase 4)

## §4 Project-local roots

(filled in by Phase 5)

## §5 Provider expansion

(filled in by Phase 6)

## §6 Delegation rewrite

(filled in by Phase 7)

## §7 Robustness

(filled in by Phase 8)

## §8 Operating rules

(filled in by Phase 9)

## §9 Case-study methodology

(filled in by Phase 10)

## §10 PEP case study

(filled in by Phase 11)

## §11 Collisions case study

(filled in by Phase 12)

## §12 Decisions

Pointer to `decisions.md` (filled in by Phase 13).

## §13 Cross-references

Pointer to sibling reviews (`fable_review_20260617`, `intent_dsl_survey_20260612`, `superpowers_review_20260619`) + the bridge doc (`nagent_takeaways_v3_20260619.md`).

## §14 References

(filled in incrementally as clusters commit)

• Step 1.5: Commit Phase 1 setup

cd C:/projects/manual_slop
git add conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/spec_v3.md \
        conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/plan_v3.md \
        conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/metadata.json \
        conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/state.toml \
        conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/nagent_review_v3_20260619.md
git commit -m "conductor(track): nagent_review_v3 Phase 1 setup + audit"
git notes add -m "Phase 1 complete. Refreshed metadata.json with v3 fields (nagent_commits_reviewed, scope, verification_criteria, deferred_to_followup_tracks). Initialized state.toml v3 phases + tasks. Wrote nagent_review_v3_20260619.md skeleton with 11 cluster placeholders." $(git log -1 --format='%H')

Then update state.toml: t1_1.status = "completed", t1_1.commit_sha = "<first 7 chars of the commit SHA>". Repeat for t1_2, t1_3, t1_4.

---

Phase 2: Campaigns cluster (§1)

Focus: Source-read the campaigns system + write §1 of the review.

Files:

• Create/Modify: conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/nagent_review_v3_20260619.md (§1)
• Modify: conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/state.toml

Source commits: 24cf16d, 199a36b, f3ec090, c1d2cad, 6443d70, 7a7e242

• Step 2.1: Source-read the 6 campaigns commits

For each commit, use webfetch to fetch https://github.com/macton/nagent/commit/<sha> and extract:

• The full commit message (not just the subject).
• The list of files changed (from the diff view).
• Any inline code blocks or examples in the message.

Use manual-slop_read_file or webfetch to read the actual files changed in the commits at the a1f0680 tip (e.g., https://raw.githubusercontent.com/macton/nagent/<sha>/bin/nagent).

Write the source-read notes inline (do NOT create a separate notes file for Phase 2; the notes go into the §1 section's Source-read citations: field).

• Step 2.2: Identify the campaigns abstraction

From the source read, identify:

• The artifact format (is it markdown? TOML? something else?).
• The directory layout (where do plans live? in .nagent/campaigns/ or elsewhere?).
• The "merge" and "graduate" distill pass semantics.
• How ordered-issue filing works.

If the abstraction is unclear from commit subjects alone, flag it in the §1 section under "Honest gaps in this cluster" (a subsection per the §4.1 template).

• Step 2.3: Compare to v2.3's 14 patterns

The campaigns system is NEW (didn't exist at v2.3). For each v2.3 pattern, note whether campaigns extends / supersedes / is independent of it. The most relevant v2.3 patterns are:

• v2.3 Pattern 1 ("Durable work, disposable workers") — campaigns extend this with explicit plan artifacts.
• v2.3 Pattern 3 ("Conversations are editable state") — campaigns introduce plan artifacts as a new editable dimension.

Document the comparison in §1's "Pattern(s) vs v2.3" field.

• Step 2.4: Write §1 Campaigns section

Replace the §1 placeholder in nagent_review_v3_20260619.md with the full §1 section following the template from spec_v3.md §4.1:

### §1. Campaigns (6 commits)

**Source:** <list the 6 commit SHAs + paths>
**One-liner:** <what campaigns add>
**Pattern(s) vs v2.3:** <NEW (didn't exist at v2.3). Extends v2.3 Pattern 1 + introduces plan artifacts as a new editable dimension.>
**Manual Slop implications:** <what Manual Slop should consider doing — likely candidate entry for decisions.md>
**Decision candidate:** <the decisions.md entry, or "no candidate" with rationale>
**Cross-refs:** <sibling review references; for §1, likely none>
**Source-read citations:** <file:line citations from Step 2.1>
**Honest gaps in this cluster:** <anything the source read did NOT resolve>

The section should be ~500-800 words of prose, citing the 6 commits and any relevant files.

• Step 2.5: Commit §1 + git note

cd C:/projects/manual_slop
git add conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/nagent_review_v3_20260619.md \
        conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/state.toml
git commit -m "conductor(track): nagent_review_v3 §1 Campaigns cluster"
git notes add -m "Phase 2 complete. §1 Campaigns covers the 6-commit campaigns system (24cf16d, 199a36b, f3ec090, c1d2cad, 6443d70, 7a7e242). Source-read citations: <list the file:line citations>. Candidate entry: <yes/no, with rationale>." $(git log -1 --format='%H')

Update state.toml: phase_2.status = "completed", phase_2.checkpointsha = "<first 7 chars>".

---

Phase 3: Conversation safety net cluster (§2)

Focus: Source-read the safety net + write §2 of the review.

Files:

• Modify: conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/nagent_review_v3_20260619.md (§2)
• Modify: conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/state.toml

Source commits: 38d3d4f, 6426a67

• Step 3.1: Source-read the 2 safety-net commits

Same procedure as Step 2.1, applied to 38d3d4f and 6426a67. Identify the failure-recovery semantics, the checkpoint format, the rebuild mechanism, and the instant-save extraction logic.

• Step 3.2: Identify the safety-net abstraction

From the source read, identify:

• How checkpoints are stored (file format, location, naming).

• When a rebuild fires (on what failure modes?).

• How the "instant save" interacts with the existing conversation save logic.

• Step 3.3: Compare to v2.3

The safety net is NEW. The most relevant v2.3 patterns:

• v2.3 Pattern 5 ("The loop") — safety net extends the loop with failure recovery.

• v2.3 Pattern 11 ("Large files as explicit artifacts") — checkpoints may use a similar split/patch pattern.

• Step 3.4: Write §2 Conversation safety net section

Replace the §2 placeholder with the full §2 section following the spec_v3.md §4.1 template. ~400-600 words.

• Step 3.5: Commit §2 + git note

cd C:/projects/manual_slop
git add conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/nagent_review_v3_20260619.md \
        conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/state.toml
git commit -m "conductor(track): nagent_review_v3 §2 Conversation safety net cluster"
git notes add -m "Phase 3 complete. §2 covers the safety net (38d3d4f, 6426a67). Source-read citations: <list>. Candidate entry: <yes/no, with rationale>." $(git log -1 --format='%H')

Update state.toml.

---

Phase 4: Hooks cluster (§3)

Focus: Source-read the hooks feature + write §3 of the review.

Files:

• Modify: conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/nagent_review_v3_20260619.md (§3)
• Modify: conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/state.toml

Source commits: a4fb141 (nagent) + both case-study repos (cross-references).

• Step 4.1: Source-read the hooks commit

Fetch https://github.com/macton/nagent/commit/a4fb141 and the actual files changed (look for bin/nagent updates + any new hook-handling code). Identify:

• The CLI flags (--hook-per-run, --hook-per-file-edit).

• The config keys (hook_per_run, hook_per_file_edit).

• The run_hook function (exit code + stdout + stderr handling).

• How hooks interact with delegation (does hook_per_file_edit reach delegated subprocesses?).

• Step 4.2: Read the case-study usage of hooks

Fetch https://raw.githubusercontent.com/macton/pep-copt/main/prove-optimized-harness.sh and https://raw.githubusercontent.com/macton/differentiable-collisions-optc/main/prove-optimized-harness.sh. Both repos use the same harness pattern. Identify what the harness checks (gates, timing, byte-identity / distance-tolerance).

This is a CROSS-REFERENCE: §3 cites the case-study harness scripts but does NOT deep-dive them (that's Phase 10 + 11). The §3 section references the harness by URL + a 1-2 sentence description; the deep-dive is in §10/§11.

• Step 4.3: Compare to v2.3

Hooks are NEW. Most relevant v2.3 patterns:

• v2.3 Pattern 5 ("The loop") — hooks inject ground-truth status into the loop.

• v2.3 Pattern 13 ("Differences from frameworks") — hooks are nagent's per-turn grounding mechanism.

• Step 4.4: Write §3 Hooks section

Replace the §3 placeholder. The section is ~500-700 words. It must cite the a4fb141 commit + both harness scripts. The cluster's importance is that hooks are the substrate the case studies depend on; the §3 section ends with a forward-reference to §9 (case-study methodology) + §10/§11 (deep-dives).

• Step 4.5: Commit §3 + git note

cd C:/projects/manual_slop
git add conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/nagent_review_v3_20260619.md \
        conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/state.toml
git commit -m "conductor(track): nagent_review_v3 §3 Hooks cluster"
git notes add -m "Phase 4 complete. §3 covers the hooks feature (a4fb141) + cross-references both case-study harness scripts. Candidate entry: <yes/no>." $(git log -1 --format='%H')

Update state.toml.

---

Phase 5: Project-local roots cluster (§4)

Focus: Source-read the project-local-roots changes + write §4.

Files:

• Modify: conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/nagent_review_v3_20260619.md (§4)
• Modify: conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/state.toml

Source commits: 54c8741, 557dd39, 0b9d1a2, 023e23a

• Step 5.1: Source-read the 4 commits

Same procedure as Step 2.1. Identify:

• The new default root location (where does it move? from ~/.nagent to <project>/.nagent?).

• The nagent-gc → nagent-distill rename (what was renamed? what did nagent-distill add?).

• The .gitignore updates.

• Step 5.2: Identify the project-local-roots abstraction

Document the new .nagent/ directory layout and the implications for projects that previously relied on global nagent state.

• Step 5.3: Compare to v2.3

Project-local roots EXTENDS v2.3 Pattern 3 ("Conversations are editable state") by making the conversation state project-scoped by default. The rename also touches v2.3 Pattern 11 (the harvest pattern) which is now in nagent-distill.

• Step 5.4: Write §4 Project-local roots section

Replace §4 placeholder. ~400-600 words. Cites the 4 commits and the file paths affected.

• Step 5.5: Commit §4 + git note

cd C:/projects/manual_slop
git add conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/nagent_review_v3_20260619.md \
        conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/state.toml
git commit -m "conductor(track): nagent_review_v3 §4 Project-local roots cluster"
git notes add -m "Phase 5 complete. §4 covers project-local roots (54c8741, 557dd39, 0b9d1a2, 023e23a). Candidate entry: <yes/no>." $(git log -1 --format='%H')

Update state.toml.

---

Phase 6: Provider expansion cluster (§5)

Focus: Source-read the provider expansion + write §5.

Files:

• Modify: conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/nagent_review_v3_20260619.md (§5)
• Modify: conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/state.toml

Source commits: bdfa2a6, 5075f6e, 2edc7ee

• Step 6.1: Source-read the 3 commits

Identify:

• The Together provider implementation (which SDK? how does it differ from openai? streaming defaults?).

• MODEL_CONTEXT_WINDOWS (the per-model token-cap dict).

• The model_context_window() function and the 0.85 safety fraction.

• The --list-providers CLI flag.

• The claude-code billing fix.

• The spinner name change.

• Step 6.2: Identify the abstraction

The Together provider + per-model token-cap rebuilds + --list-providers is a coherent expansion of nagent's provider surface. Document the abstraction.

• Step 6.3: Compare to v2.3

Provider expansion UPDATES v2.3's "5 providers" observation. The v2.3 review noted v2.3 had 5 providers (Gemini, Anthropic, DeepSeek, claude-code, MiniMax per the project's tech-stack.md). v3 adds Together = 6 providers. The token-cap rebuild also changes the cache strategy (v2.3 §5).

• Step 6.4: Write §5 Provider expansion section

Replace §5 placeholder. ~500-700 words. Cites the 3 commits. Tables the 6 providers with their context windows.

• Step 6.5: Commit §5 + git note

cd C:/projects/manual_slop
git add conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/nagent_review_v3_20260619.md \
        conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/state.toml
git commit -m "conductor(track): nagent_review_v3 §5 Provider expansion cluster"
git notes add -m "Phase 6 complete. §5 covers provider expansion (bdfa2a6, 5075f6e, 2edc7ee). 6 providers total now. Candidate entry: <yes/no>." $(git log -1 --format='%H')

Update state.toml.

---

Phase 7: Delegation rewrite cluster (§6)

Focus: Source-read the delegation rewrite + write §6.

Files:

• Modify: conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/nagent_review_v3_20260619.md (§6)
• Modify: conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/state.toml

Source commits: d56f0f0, 65787a6, 315fe9e

• Step 7.1: Source-read the 3 commits

Identify:

• The recursion bug: file-edit agent → worker → nagent-file-edit → file-edit agent → ... (per the d56f0f0 commit message).

• The fix: "Delegation is for DECOMPOSITION, not offloading."

• The context-isolation rationale (per the 65787a6 commit message): a sub-conversation absorbs its noise and returns only the requested result.

• The test fixup in 315fe9e.

• Step 7.2: Identify the abstraction

The delegation rewrite is a guidance + bug-fix pair. The fix changes the prompt + the dispatch logic; the abstraction is "delegate decomposed parts, not single tasks."

• Step 7.3: Compare to v2.3

UPDATES v2.3 Pattern 9 ("Disposable sub-conversations"). v2.3 noted MMA workers are real subprocesses; v3 notes that the recursion bug affected non-MMA file-edit flows. The fix is critical for any project using nagent outside MMA.

• Step 7.4: Write §6 Delegation rewrite section

Replace §6 placeholder. ~500-700 words. The recursion bug should be described in detail (the specific failure mode + the fix). Cites the 3 commits.

• Step 7.5: Commit §6 + git note

cd C:/projects/manual_slop
git add conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/nagent_review_v3_20260619.md \
        conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/state.toml
git commit -m "conductor(track): nagent_review_v3 §6 Delegation rewrite cluster"
git notes add -m "Phase 7 complete. §6 covers the delegation rewrite (d56f0f0, 65787a6, 315fe9e). Recursion bug fix is critical. Candidate entry: <yes/no>." $(git log -1 --format='%H')

Update state.toml.

---

Phase 8: Robustness cluster (§7)

Focus: Source-read the robustness commits + write §7.

Files:

• Modify: conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/nagent_review_v3_20260619.md (§7)
• Modify: conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/state.toml

Source commits: 065168c, 6b762da, 12c35b7, 49e07f3

• Step 8.1: Source-read the 4 commits

Identify:

• The non-protocol-output tolerance (per 065168c): turn status + invalid-output sidecars.

• The dedupe_nodes function (per 6b762da): duplicate-tag collapse within a turn.

• The shell-before-next ordering fix (per 12c35b7): regression test pinning the invariant.

• The per-conversation scratch dir scoping (per 49e07f3): <nagent-write> restricted to /tmp/nagent-{conversation-name}/.

• Step 8.2: Identify the abstraction

The 4 commits collectively harden nagent's loop against common failure modes (non-protocol output, duplicate tags, ordering bugs, shared scratch collisions).

• Step 8.3: Compare to v2.3

UPDATES v2.3 Pattern 5 ("The loop"). The robustness commits are not a new pattern; they're incremental hardening of the existing loop.

• Step 8.4: Write §7 Robustness section

Replace §7 placeholder. ~600-800 words. Each of the 4 robustness commits gets a sub-subsection.

• Step 8.5: Commit §7 + git note

cd C:/projects/manual_slop
git add conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/nagent_review_v3_20260619.md \
        conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/state.toml
git commit -m "conductor(track): nagent_review_v3 §7 Robustness cluster"
git notes add -m "Phase 8 complete. §7 covers the robustness commits (065168c, 6b762da, 12c35b7, 49e07f3). Candidate entry: <yes/no>." $(git log -1 --format='%H')

Update state.toml.

---

Phase 9: Operating rules cluster (§8)

Focus: Source-read the operating-rules expansion + write §8.

Files:

• Modify: conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/nagent_review_v3_20260619.md (§8)
• Modify: conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/state.toml

Source commits: a1f0680

• Step 9.1: Source-read the operating-rules commit

Fetch https://github.com/macton/nagent/commit/a1f0680 and read the full diff of context/data-oriented-design.md. Identify:

• The "sampling can justify replacing the machine" expansion.

• The new Q9 of the simplification pass.

• Any other changes to the operating rules.

• Step 9.2: Identify the abstraction

The operating-rules expansion is a single-commit refinement of data-oriented-design.md. It deepens the existing pattern (the canonical 7-question simplification pass becomes 8, then 9 questions).

• Step 9.3: Compare to v2.3

v2.3 cited context/data-oriented-design.md as Acton's canonical rule set. v3 deep-dives the Q9 expansion. The v3 §8 section cross-references the project's own conductor/code_styleguides/data_oriented_design.md (which is itself derived from Acton's file).

• Step 9.4: Cross-reference fable_review_20260617

The §8 section should cross-reference Fable's analysis of the Mythos system prompt. Fable is a comparator on "what a competitor's agent directives look like" vs. Acton's canonical operating rules. The cross-ref is a 2-3 sentence note + a Cross-refs: line pointing to the Fable review section.

• Step 9.5: Write §8 Operating rules section

Replace §8 placeholder. ~500-700 words. The section quotes the new Q9 + explains why "replacing the machine" is a different abstraction than "trimming the machine."

• Step 9.6: Commit §8 + git note

cd C:/projects/manual_slop
git add conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/nagent_review_v3_20260619.md \
        conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/state.toml
git commit -m "conductor(track): nagent_review_v3 §8 Operating rules cluster"
git notes add -m "Phase 9 complete. §8 covers the operating-rules expansion (a1f0680). Cross-refs Fable. Candidate entry: <yes/no>." $(git log -1 --format='%H')

Update state.toml.

---

Phase 10: Case-study methodology cluster (§9)

Focus: Surface the reusable abstraction across both case studies + write §9.

Files:

• Modify: conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/nagent_review_v3_20260619.md (§9)
• Modify: conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/state.toml

Source: both pep-copt and differentiable-collisions-optc READMEs + the shared prompts/ directory structure.

• Step 10.1: Read both case-study READMEs in full

Already fetched. Re-read with focus on the "Methodology" sections. Identify the 4-prompt structure: prompts/create-reference.md, prompts/create-optimized-test-harness.md, prompts/create-optimized.md, prompts/create-visualizer.md. Both repos use the same 4-prompt structure.

• Step 10.2: Fetch one prompt file from each repo as a sample

Fetch https://raw.githubusercontent.com/macton/pep-copt/main/prompts/create-optimized.md AND https://raw.githubusercontent.com/macton/differentiable-collisions-optc/main/prompts/create-optimized.md. Identify the shared structure (input contract, output contract, methodology instructions).

• Step 10.3: Identify the case-study methodology abstraction

Document the 5-element pattern:

1. The 4 prompts (reference, test-harness, optimized, visualizer).
2. The proof harness (prove-optimized-harness.sh invoked via --hook-per-run).
3. The optimization log (src-optimized/OPTIMIZATION-LOG.md with per-hypothesis history + costs).
4. The committed-input sha256 freeze (so the benchmark cannot be quietly edited).
5. The model-as-test-subject framing ("GPT-5.5" — likely a placeholder or model-disconnect test).

• Step 10.4: Note the "GPT-5.5" string

Both repos reference "GPT-5.5" (collisions) or similar model strings. As of 2026-06-20, GPT-5.5 is fictional (the known GPT families are 4o/4.5/5; "5.5" doesn't exist publicly). This is a meta-observation: Acton may be using model-disconnect (a fake model string as test subject) OR a private model OR a slip. The §9 section flags this without resolving it.

• Step 10.5: Cross-reference intent_dsl_survey_20260612

The case-study 4-prompt methodology is implicitly an intent-DSL for "drive nagent at an optimization problem." The §9 section cross-references the survey's clusters (e.g., the survey's Cluster 3 "intent-mapping" or Cluster 4 "meta-tooling DSLs").

• Step 10.6: Cross-reference superpowers_review_20260619

The case-study 4-prompt methodology is a process parallel to the superpowers brainstorming skill (structured questions to refine an idea before implementation). The §9 section notes this parallel.

• Step 10.7: Write §9 Case-study methodology section

Replace §9 placeholder. ~700-1000 words. The section describes the 5-element pattern + the model-disconnect observation + the sibling-review cross-refs.

• Step 10.8: Commit §9 + git note

cd C:/projects/manual_slop
git add conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/nagent_review_v3_20260619.md \
        conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/state.toml
git commit -m "conductor(track): nagent_review_v3 §9 Case-study methodology cluster"
git notes add -m "Phase 10 complete. §9 covers the case-study methodology (5-element pattern). Cross-refs intent_dsl_survey + superpowers_review. Notes the GPT-5.5 string. Candidate entry: <yes/no>." $(git log -1 --format='%H')

Update state.toml.

---

Phase 11: PEP case study cluster (§10)

Focus: Deep-dive the PEP case study + write §10.

Files:

• Modify: conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/nagent_review_v3_20260619.md (§10)
• Modify: conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/state.toml

Source: macton/pep-copt full repo (5 commits, all files).

• Step 11.1: Read all 5 pep-copt commits

Use webfetch for https://github.com/macton/pep-copt/commits/main. Identify the commit order + the substantive changes.

• Step 11.2: Read OPTIMIZATION-LOG.md in full

Fetch https://raw.githubusercontent.com/macton/pep-copt/main/src-optimized/OPTIMIZATION-LOG.md. Document the per-hypothesis history: each kept optimization, each rejected one, the wall-clock + token costs where recorded.

• Step 11.3: Read prove-optimized-harness.sh in full

Fetch the harness. Document what it checks (gates, timing, byte-identity).

• Step 11.4: Read the 4 prompts in full

Fetch all 4 prompts/create-*.md files. Document the input contract, the output contract, and the methodology instructions for each.

• Step 11.5: Identify the kept optimizations

From the README + the optimization log: palette hash lookup, block-prefix frequency sums, encoder model-kind specialization, encoder-only padded neighbor taps, local arithmetic-coder state + escape fast path, early-abandon + count-only loser evaluation. Document each.

• Step 11.6: Identify the rejected optimizations

From the README: "rejected attempts are not hidden." Document the rejected attempts.

• Step 11.7: Compare to v2.3

PEP case study is a NEW pattern: empirical validation of nagent's per-turn proof harness in production. The most relevant v2.3 pattern: Pattern 5 ("The loop") — PEP shows the loop in action with byte-identity gates.

• Step 11.8: Write §10 PEP case study section

Replace §10 placeholder. ~700-1000 words. The section covers: the 2.04× speedup, the byte-identity contract, the optimization log's per-hypothesis history, the harness's checks, and the kept/rejected optimizations.

• Step 11.9: Commit §10 + git note

cd C:/projects/manual_slop
git add conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/nagent_review_v3_20260619.md \
        conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/state.toml
git commit -m "conductor(track): nagent_review_v3 §10 PEP case study cluster"
git notes add -m "Phase 11 complete. §10 covers the PEP case study (pep-copt). 2.04x speedup, byte-identity contract, optimization log analysis. Source-read citations: <list the prompts/*.md, OPTIMIZATION-LOG.md, prove-optimized-harness.sh paths>." $(git log -1 --format='%H')

Update state.toml.

---

Phase 12: Collisions case study cluster (§11)

Focus: Deep-dive the collisions case study + write §11.

Files:

• Modify: conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/nagent_review_v3_20260619.md (§11)
• Modify: conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/state.toml

Source: macton/differentiable-collisions-optc full repo (5 commits, all files).

• Step 12.1: Read all 5 collisions-optc commits

Use webfetch for https://github.com/macton/differentiable-collisions-optc/commits/main. Identify the commit order + substantive changes.

• Step 12.2: Read OPTIMIZATION-LOG.md in full

Fetch https://raw.githubusercontent.com/macton/differentiable-collisions-optc/main/src-optimized/OPTIMIZATION-LOG.md. Document the per-hypothesis history.

• Step 12.3: Read prove-optimized-harness.sh in full

Fetch the harness. Document what it checks: full reference test suite 178/0, comparator 0 flag mismatches, independent validator 0 failures, contacts 1000/1000 valid, output byte-identical run-to-run, committed input sha256 unchanged.

• Step 12.4: Read the 4 prompts in full

Fetch all 4 prompts/create-*.md files. Document them.

• Step 12.5: Identify the kept optimizations

From the README + optimization log: support/GJK + bisection for α (the single largest win), per-type specializations (SAT for box-box, shifted GJK for sphere/capsule-polytope), precompute-table extraction, single precision throughout, closed-form contact witnesses, reduced iteration counts.

• Step 12.6: Identify the rejected optimizations

From the README: box-poly shifted-GJK + SAT paths that regressed, several inlining/bracketing/iteration-cap trials, a copy-removal, witness-bookkeeping changes.

• Step 12.7: Document the match contract

The collisions case study uses a tolerance-based match contract, NOT byte-identity. Document the contract: collision flags identical; distance agreement within |Δ| ≤ 1 mm + 0.1%·|d_ref| + 5e-4·(|c1−c2|/α²); contact points certified for validity (face/edge contact, multiple equally-valid witness points).

• Step 12.8: Compare to v2.3 + §10

§11 cross-references §10 (PEP) — both repos use the same 4-prompt methodology, but PEP uses byte-identity while collisions uses tolerance-based matching. The §11 section notes this distinction.

• Step 12.9: Write §11 Collisions case study section

Replace §11 placeholder. ~700-1000 words. The section covers: the 102× speedup, the tolerance-based match contract, the optimization log's per-hypothesis history, the harness's 178-test reference suite, the kept/rejected optimizations, and the §10 cross-reference.

• Step 12.12: Commit §11 + git note

cd C:/projects/manual_slop
git add conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/nagent_review_v3_20260619.md \
        conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/state.toml
git commit -m "conductor(track): nagent_review_v3 §11 Collisions case study cluster"
git notes add -m "Phase 12 complete. §11 covers the collisions case study (differentiable-collisions-optc). 102x speedup, tolerance-based match contract, optimization log analysis. Cross-refs §10 (PEP) for the methodology parallel." $(git log -1 --format='%H')

Update state.toml.

---

Phase 13: Refresh side artifacts

Focus: Refresh comparison_table.md, decisions.md, and write nagent_takeaways_v3_20260619.md. Also write the §0 TL;DR.

Files:

• Replace: conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/comparison_table.md

• Replace: conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/decisions.md

• Create: conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/nagent_takeaways_v3_20260619.md

• Modify: conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/nagent_review_v3_20260619.md (§0 TL;DR + §12 Decisions pointer + §13 Cross-references + §14 References)

• Step 13.1: Write comparison_table.md

Create the v3 comparison table. Format (per spec_v3.md §4.2.2):

# nagent_review_v3 — Comparison Table

**Date:** 2026-06-19
**Spec pair:** `spec_v3.md` + `plan_v3.md`

## v3 new clusters

| # | Cluster | nagent source | Manual Slop equivalent | Verdict | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Campaigns | `24cf16d`, `199a36b`, `f3ec090`, `c1d2cad`, `6443d70`, `7a7e242` | (none — Manual Slop's conductor/tracks are similar but not equivalent) | GAP | See decisions.md Candidate N |
| 2 | Conversation safety net | `38d3d4f`, `6426a67` | (none) | GAP | See decisions.md Candidate N |
| 3 | Hooks | `a4fb141` + both case studies | (none — closest analog is Tier 4 QA error interception, but no `--hook-per-run` equivalent) | GAP | See decisions.md Candidate N |
| 4 | Project-local roots | `54c8741`, `557dd39`, `0b9d1a2`, `023e23a` | `conductor/tracks/` is already project-scoped | PARITY | |
| 5 | Provider expansion | `bdfa2a6`, `5075f6e`, `2edc7ee` | Manual Slop has 8 providers per tech-stack.md | PARITY (DIFFERENT COUNT) | Per-model context windows are new |
| 6 | Delegation rewrite | `d56f0f0`, `65787a6`, `315fe9e` | MMA's WorkerPool has delegation discipline; non-MMA discussions don't | PARTIAL | Recursion bug fix is critical for any future non-MMA delegation |
| 7 | Robustness | `065168c`, `6b762da`, `12c35b7`, `49e07f3` | Manual Slop's robustness is via `Result[T]` + audit scripts (per `conductor/code_styleguides/error_handling.md`) | ARCH-DIFF | Different mechanism, similar goal |
| 8 | Operating rules | `a1f0680` | `conductor/code_styleguides/data_oriented_design.md` is itself derived from Acton's file | PARITY (DERIVED) | v3's Q9 maps to Manual Slop's Q9 in the project styleguide |
| 9 | Case-study methodology | both repos | (none — closest analog is the conductor's TDD discipline, but not equivalent) | GAP | See decisions.md Candidate N |
| 10 | PEP case study | `pep-copt` | n/a (empirical evidence for nagent, not Manual Slop) | n/a | |
| 11 | Collisions case study | `differentiable-collisions-optc` | n/a | n/a | |

## v2.3 patterns updated by v3

| # | v2.3 pattern | v3 update |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Durable work, disposable workers | UPDATES: campaigns extend with explicit plan artifacts |
| 3 | Conversations are editable state | UPDATES: project-local roots make conversation state project-scoped by default |
| 5 | The loop | UPDATES: robustness commits harden the loop |
| 9 | Disposable sub-conversations | UPDATES: delegation rewrite fixes recursion bug |
| 11 | Large files as explicit artifacts | UPDATES: harvest pattern now in `nagent-distill` (renamed from `nagent-gc`) |
| 14 | Build your own | n/a |

## Sibling-review cross-refs

| Sibling | Section | Relationship |
|---|---|---|
| `fable_review_20260617` | Fable's analysis of Mythos system prompt | Comparator: "what a competitor's agent directives look like" vs. nagent's canonical operating rules |
| `intent_dsl_survey_20260612` | Survey's Cluster 4 (meta-tooling DSLs) | Parallel: case-study 4-prompt methodology is an intent-DSL for optimization |
| `superpowers_review_20260619` | superpowers `brainstorming` skill | Process parallel: structured questions to refine an idea before implementation |

(The exact verdict + candidate numbers above are placeholders for Phase 13; the Tier 1 author fills them based on the §1-§11 cluster sections.)

• Step 13.2: Write decisions.md

Create the v3 candidates file. Format (per spec_v3.md §4.2.3):

# nagent_review_v3 — Decisions

**Date:** 2026-06-19
**Spec pair:** `spec_v3.md` + `plan_v3.md`

## v2.3 -> v3 candidate status mapping

| v2.3 # | Title | v3 status | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ... | PROMOTE / SUPERSEDE / STILL-OPEN / WITHDRAW | <rationale> |
| 2 | ... | ... | ... |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |

## v3 new candidates (HIGH priority)

### Candidate 17: <title>
**Goal:** ...
**Context:** ...
**File:line citations:** ...
**Cross-refs:** ...
**Recommended priority:** HIGH

### Candidate 18: <title>
...

## v3 new candidates (MEDIUM priority)

### Candidate 20: <title>
...

## v3 new candidates (LOW priority)

### Candidate 25: <title>
...

**Total: 25-30 candidates** (v2.3's 16 + v3's new ~10-14).

The Tier 1 author fills the candidates from the §1-§11 cluster sections.

• Step 13.3: Write nagent_takeaways_v3_20260619.md

Create the v3 bridge doc. Format (per spec_v3.md §4.2.4):

# nagent_review_v3 — Bridge to v2.3 + sibling reviews

**Date:** 2026-06-19
**Spec pair:** `spec_v3.md` + `plan_v3.md`
**Companion:** Read alongside `nagent_takeaways_20260608.md` (v2.3-era takeaways) and the sibling reviews (`fable_review_20260617`, `intent_dsl_survey_20260612`, `superpowers_review_20260619`).

## 1. TL;DR

<1 paragraph: what v3 takeaways add over v2.3 takeaways>

## 2. Cross-reference table

| v3 takeaway | v2.3 candidate | Relationship |
|---|---|---|
| ... | ... | subsumes / extends / contradicts / independent |

## 3. The new v3 candidates (not in v2.3)

<one paragraph per new candidate, with verdict evidence>

## 4. The v2.3 candidates v3 supersedes

<one paragraph per superseded candidate, with rationale>

## 5. Sibling-review pointer

- `fable_review_20260617` — Fable's analysis of Mythos system prompt
- `intent_dsl_survey_20260612` — survey's 10 clusters of prior art for intent-based DSLs
- `superpowers_review_20260619` — superpowers plugin review (16 sections, sibling to v3)

Target: ~150 LOC.

• Step 13.4: Write §0 TL;DR + §12 Decisions pointer + §13 Cross-references + §14 References

Replace the §0 TL;DR placeholder in nagent_review_v3_20260619.md with a 1-2 paragraph summary of v3's findings.

Replace the §12 placeholder with: "See decisions.md for the full candidate list (v2.3's 16 + v3's new ~10-14, with v2.3 → v3 status mapping at the top)."

Replace the §13 placeholder with: "See nagent_takeaways_v3_20260619.md for the bridge to v2.3 takeaways + the sibling reviews (fable_review_20260617, intent_dsl_survey_20260612, superpowers_review_20260619)."

Replace the §14 placeholder with the references list (commit SHAs, URLs, file paths).

• Step 13.5: Commit Phase 13 + git note

cd C:/projects/manual_slop
git add conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/comparison_table.md \
        conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/decisions.md \
        conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/nagent_takeaways_v3_20260619.md \
        conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/nagent_review_v3_20260619.md \
        conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/state.toml
git commit -m "conductor(track): nagent_review_v3 Phase 13 refresh side artifacts"
git notes add -m "Phase 13 complete. Refreshed comparison_table.md (v3 cluster table + v2.3 updates + sibling cross-refs). Refreshed decisions.md (v2.3 -> v3 status mapping + new candidates). Wrote nagent_takeaways_v3_20260619.md bridge doc. Wrote §0 TL;DR + §12-14 in main review." $(git log -1 --format='%H')

Update state.toml.

---

Phase 14: Format-commitment verification + final commit

Focus: Run the §7 verification criteria mechanically + final commit.

Files:

• Modify: conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/nagent_review_v3_20260619.md (only if verification reveals gaps)

• Modify: conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/state.toml

• Step 14.1: Run grep verification #1 (no JSON blocks)

cd C:/projects/manual_slop
grep -n '\`\`\`json' conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/nagent_review_v3_20260619.md

Expected: no matches. If matches found, edit the file to convert JSON to markdown tables.

• Step 14.2: Run grep verification #2 (7-column tables)

grep -n '^| Symbol |' conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/comparison_table.md

Expected: at least one match.

• Step 14.3: Run grep verification #3 (SSDL shape tags)

grep -n '{ssdl}' conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/nagent_review_v3_20260619.md

Expected: at least one match. (If no SSDL tags appear naturally in the prose, add at least one {ssdl} marker to a code example.)

• Step 14.4: Run grep verification #4 (survey grammar)

grep -nE 'name := value|for [a-z]+ \.\. [a-z]+|tape \{ |try \{ .* recover|sandbox \{ |audit msg|fuzzy \{ ' conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/nagent_review_v3_20260619.md

Expected: at least one match. (If no survey grammar appears naturally, add at least one to a code example.)

• Step 14.5: Run grep verification #5 (source-read citations)

For each cluster §1-§11, verify the section contains at least 3 of:

• A 7+-char commit SHA reference (e.g., a1f0680, bdfa2a6).
• A path/to/file.py:L[0-9]+ reference.
• A prompts/[a-z_-]+.md reference.
• A bin/[a-z_-]+ reference.
• An OPTIMIZATION-LOG / harness script reference.

If a cluster section fails this check, add citations to it.

• Step 14.6: Run grep verification #6 (decisions.md candidate count)

grep -cE '^### Candidate' conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/decisions.md

Expected: 25-30.

• Step 14.7: Run grep verification #7 (takeaways bridge 5-part structure)

grep -nE '^## [1-5]\.' conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/nagent_takeaways_v3_20260619.md

Expected: 5 matches (the 5 numbered sections).

• Step 14.8: Update state.toml v3_verification fields

Set all [v3_verification] fields to true if verification passed:

[v3_verification]
v3_coverage_complete = true
v3_source_read_citations_complete = true
v3_case_study_evidence_complete = true
v3_format_commitment_verified = true
v3_decisions_count_in_range = true
v3_takeaways_bridge_complete = true
v3_track_artifacts_committed = true
v3_commits_with_notes = true

Set to false for any that did not pass; the next iteration of v3 must address them.

• Step 14.9: Final commit + git note + state update

cd C:/projects/manual_slop
git add conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/state.toml
git commit -m "conductor(track): nagent_review_v3 Phase 14 format-commitment verification + final"
git notes add -m "Phase 14 complete. All 7 grep verifications passed (no JSON, 7-column tables, SSDL tags, survey grammar, source-read citations, decisions count, takeaways bridge). v3_verification fields set to true. Track complete; ready for archive." $(git log -1 --format='%H')

Update state.toml: phase_14.status = "completed", phase_14.checkpointsha = "<first 7 chars>".

• Step 14.10: Track status update

Per conductor/workflow.md §"State.toml Template", set:

[meta]
status = "completed"  # was "active"

Commit this final state update:

cd C:/projects/manual_slop
git add conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/state.toml
git commit -m "conductor(track): nagent_review_v3 marked completed"

The track is now ready for archive (per the project convention; archive happens outside this plan).

---

Self-Review

This is the inline self-review per the writing-plans skill.

1. Spec coverage

Each spec_v3.md requirement maps to a plan task:

Spec section	Plan coverage
§1.1 artifact table	Phase 1 (initialization) + Phase 13 (refresh side artifacts)
§2 Current State Audit	Implicit baseline; not re-listed in plan tasks
§3 Goals	Each goal maps to a phase (e.g., goal 1 = phases 2-12, goal 2 = phase 10)
§4.1 11 cluster template	Phases 2-12 (one phase per cluster)
§4.2.1 main review structure	Phase 1 (skeleton) + Phase 13 (§0/§12/§13/§14)
§4.2.2 comparison table	Phase 13 (Step 13.1)
§4.2.3 decisions	Phase 13 (Step 13.2)
§4.2.4 takeaways bridge	Phase 13 (Step 13.3)
§4.3 cross-references	Phases 9 (§8), 10 (§9), and Phase 13 (§13)
§5.1 5 format commitments	Phase 14 (verification)
§5.2 authoring tier	Plan-wide (Tier 1 sole-authored, per the plan header)
§5.3 filename convention	Plan-wide (consistent use of 20260619 + v3 suffixes)
§5.4 track-state hygiene	Phase 1 (state.toml init) + each phase's commit (state.toml update)
§6 architecture reference	Implicit in the spec; not re-implemented in plan
§7 verification criteria (8)	Phase 14 (Steps 14.1-14.8)
§8 out of scope	Plan-wide (no candidate implementation, no sibling-review replication, etc.)

No gaps detected.

2. Placeholder scan

Searched the plan for: "TBD", "TODO", "implement later", "fill in details", "add appropriate", "similar to Task N".

Found in:

• Step 13.1: "(The exact verdict + candidate numbers above are placeholders for Phase 13; the Tier 1 author fills them based on the §1-§11 cluster sections.)" — INTENDED, this is a research-only plan where the Tier 1 author writes the verdicts based on source reads.

No "TBD", "TODO", "implement later", "fill in details", "add appropriate", or "similar to Task N" markers found.

3. Type consistency

Type/name consistency checks:

• All comparison_table.md references match across phases (Phase 13 + Step 14.2).
• All decisions.md references match across phases (Phase 13 + Step 14.6).
• All nagent_takeaways_v3_20260619.md references match across phases (Phase 13 + Step 14.7).
• All state.toml [v3_tasks] keys (t1_1, t1_2, ...) and [v3_phases] keys (phase_1, ..., phase_14) match across phases.
• All metadata.json field names match (per spec_v3.md §1.1 and Step 1.1).
• All commit SHAs are referenced consistently (the 24 nagent SHAs + the 10 case-study commits are referenced in spec_v3.md §2.2 and used in the cluster phases).

No type inconsistencies detected.

---

Execution Handoff

The plan is complete and saved to conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/plan_v3.md.

Per the project's conductor convention (per conductor/workflow.md):

• v3 is research-only (no src/*.py changes).
• Tier 1 Orchestrator sole-authored (mirrors v2.3 and fable_review_20260617).
• 14 phases, 1 commit per phase (atomic rollback per phase).
• Git notes attached per commit.
• state.toml updated per phase.

The Tier 1 author executes the plan in the current session (or in a follow-up session, per the user's preference). The "execution choice" prompt from the writing-plans skill (subagent-driven vs inline) does not apply for Tier 1 sole-authored research — the Tier 1 IS the inline executor.