generated from coulomb/repo-seed
Plan agentic hierarchy generation
This commit is contained in:
@@ -0,0 +1,215 @@
|
|||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
id: RREG-WP-0018
|
||||||
|
type: workplan
|
||||||
|
title: "Agentic Hierarchy And Intent/Scope Review"
|
||||||
|
domain: capabilities
|
||||||
|
repo: repo-scoping
|
||||||
|
status: active
|
||||||
|
owner: codex
|
||||||
|
topic_slug: foerster-capabilities
|
||||||
|
created: "2026-05-15"
|
||||||
|
updated: "2026-05-15"
|
||||||
|
state_hub_workstream_id: "83df7082-789f-440e-b7a8-d1f8ecd01cc6"
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
# Agentic Hierarchy And Intent/Scope Review
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The Railiance and related repository datasets exposed a gap in the current
|
||||||
|
generation pipeline. Deterministic scanning produces useful facts and content
|
||||||
|
chunks, but most repositories without an `INTENT.md` stop at a single candidate
|
||||||
|
ability and do not produce candidate capabilities, features, or evidence. The
|
||||||
|
dependency graph then appears empty because it only renders edges from approved
|
||||||
|
characteristics; it does not yet render fact-only, candidate, or partial
|
||||||
|
hierarchies.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
This workplan shifts the next improvement from deterministic acceptance toward a
|
||||||
|
reviewable agentic support layer. Deterministic scanners should continue to
|
||||||
|
produce transparent facts and formal rejection signals. Agentic generation should
|
||||||
|
stand in for the human abstraction step: deriving features, capabilities,
|
||||||
|
abilities, and draft scope from facts, source-linked text, and existing
|
||||||
|
`SCOPE.md` content when present, while keeping every result reviewable.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Dataset Assessment
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The current `var/repo-scoping.sqlite3` dataset contains eight repositories. The
|
||||||
|
new non-repo-scoping repositories all completed analysis, but only
|
||||||
|
`ops-warden` produced a candidate capability and feature. Railiance repos mostly
|
||||||
|
produced one candidate ability, zero candidate capabilities, zero candidate
|
||||||
|
features, and zero candidate evidence.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Observed patterns:
|
||||||
|
- `repo-scoping`: complete approved hierarchy and dependency graph
|
||||||
|
(`92` nodes / `241` edges).
|
||||||
|
- `railiance-cluster`, `railiance-infra`, `railiance-apps`,
|
||||||
|
`railiance-platform`, `railiance-enablement`, and `vergabe-teilnahme`:
|
||||||
|
facts and content chunks exist, but no lower candidate hierarchy is produced.
|
||||||
|
- `ops-warden`: interface facts produce one generic capability and feature, but
|
||||||
|
the ability name is polluted by template README text instead of the specific
|
||||||
|
`SCOPE.md` one-liner.
|
||||||
|
- Repositories with rich `SCOPE.md` files already contain useful one-liners,
|
||||||
|
relevant/not-relevant boundaries, related repos, entry points, and
|
||||||
|
`Provided Capabilities` blocks, but those are currently treated as
|
||||||
|
`derived_scope` facts and not promoted into candidate capabilities.
|
||||||
|
- Repositories without `INTENT.md` need a proposed intent draft, not an
|
||||||
|
automatic source-file mutation. The draft should be an ambitious design-intent
|
||||||
|
version of the abstracted current scope and should require review before it is
|
||||||
|
written.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## T01: Capture Sparse-Hierarchy Dataset Baseline
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
```task
|
||||||
|
id: RREG-WP-0018-T01
|
||||||
|
status: todo
|
||||||
|
priority: high
|
||||||
|
state_hub_task_id: "dd00a642-7c69-4ae2-b7ac-954c31a1c72a"
|
||||||
|
```
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Create a repeatable local assessment command or artifact that summarizes each
|
||||||
|
repository's latest run across facts, content chunks, candidate layers, approved
|
||||||
|
layers, document presence, and dependency graph element counts.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Acceptance criteria:
|
||||||
|
- The Railiance/ops/vergabe dataset can be compared before and after generation
|
||||||
|
changes without relying on screenshots or manual DB inspection.
|
||||||
|
- The report distinguishes approved, candidate, draft, and fact-only graph
|
||||||
|
coverage.
|
||||||
|
- The report flags suspicious abstraction quality issues such as template README
|
||||||
|
contamination and empty lower layers despite rich `SCOPE.md` content.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## T02: Generate Candidate Hierarchies From Facts And Scope Text
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
```task
|
||||||
|
id: RREG-WP-0018-T02
|
||||||
|
status: todo
|
||||||
|
priority: high
|
||||||
|
state_hub_task_id: "01eb03da-7a0e-4e22-ae2d-7596752d178e"
|
||||||
|
```
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Extend generation so a repository can get candidate features, capabilities,
|
||||||
|
abilities, and draft scope even when no `INTENT.md` exists. Existing `SCOPE.md`
|
||||||
|
content may be used as review input for current-state candidates, but it should
|
||||||
|
remain labeled as derived/current scope rather than design intent.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Acceptance criteria:
|
||||||
|
- `SCOPE.md` `Provided Capabilities` blocks become source-linked candidate
|
||||||
|
capabilities/features when present.
|
||||||
|
- `One-liner`, `Core Idea`, `Relevant When`, `Not Relevant When`, related repo,
|
||||||
|
and entry point sections contribute to candidate ability/scope drafts without
|
||||||
|
being auto-approved.
|
||||||
|
- Configuration, manifest, Makefile, Helm/Kubernetes, Terraform, Ansible, CLI,
|
||||||
|
and test facts can produce concrete feature candidates rather than stopping at
|
||||||
|
a generic ability.
|
||||||
|
- Candidate naming prefers repo-specific scope/readme evidence over template
|
||||||
|
boilerplate such as `repo-seed`.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## T03: Add Agentic Draft Generation Layer
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
```task
|
||||||
|
id: RREG-WP-0018-T03
|
||||||
|
status: todo
|
||||||
|
priority: high
|
||||||
|
state_hub_task_id: "fd572f4d-d2f6-4c85-bbf5-f77829fd6e6a"
|
||||||
|
```
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Introduce an agentic generation step after deterministic facts and before human
|
||||||
|
approval. The agent should receive facts, source-role metadata, content chunks,
|
||||||
|
and deterministic candidate seeds, then propose a grounded draft hierarchy.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Acceptance criteria:
|
||||||
|
- Agentic generation can fill missing abstraction levels from facts and source
|
||||||
|
text, including scope when no reviewed scope exists.
|
||||||
|
- Every agentic draft carries source references and a rationale explaining how
|
||||||
|
the abstraction was derived.
|
||||||
|
- The agentic step does not write `INTENT.md`, does not auto-approve registry
|
||||||
|
truth, and does not bypass quality gates.
|
||||||
|
- Failures or unavailable agent configuration leave deterministic facts and
|
||||||
|
candidates intact with an explicit review decision.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## T04: Review And Edit INTENT.md / SCOPE.md Drafts
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
```task
|
||||||
|
id: RREG-WP-0018-T04
|
||||||
|
status: todo
|
||||||
|
priority: high
|
||||||
|
state_hub_task_id: "286d96e0-ec5a-4a55-bb50-62d20ab25830"
|
||||||
|
```
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Add review surfaces for repository `INTENT.md` and `SCOPE.md` without mutating
|
||||||
|
source files automatically. If `INTENT.md` is missing, produce a proposed intent
|
||||||
|
draft as an ambitious design-intent version of the abstracted current scope.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Acceptance criteria:
|
||||||
|
- Users can view existing `INTENT.md` and `SCOPE.md` content from the checkout.
|
||||||
|
- Users can review, edit, diff, and explicitly apply generated drafts.
|
||||||
|
- Missing `INTENT.md` produces a draft artifact with provenance, not an
|
||||||
|
automatic file write.
|
||||||
|
- Draft intent is clearly separated from current scope: intent describes desired
|
||||||
|
utility; scope describes current understood behavior.
|
||||||
|
- SCOPE updates remain reviewable and do not overwrite user files without an
|
||||||
|
explicit write action.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## T05: Make Dependency Graph Work For Partial Hierarchies
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
```task
|
||||||
|
id: RREG-WP-0018-T05
|
||||||
|
status: todo
|
||||||
|
priority: high
|
||||||
|
state_hub_task_id: "80bc671c-2361-47e5-8135-7c945de66437"
|
||||||
|
```
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Dependency graph generation should degrade gracefully when approved abilities,
|
||||||
|
capabilities, or features are absent. It should be able to show facts,
|
||||||
|
candidate entries, draft scope/intent nodes, and partial hierarchy edges.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Acceptance criteria:
|
||||||
|
- Repositories with facts never render as an empty dependency graph solely
|
||||||
|
because approved characteristics are missing.
|
||||||
|
- Graph nodes are visibly labeled as approved, candidate, draft, or fact-only.
|
||||||
|
- Candidate and draft edges use distinct dependency types from approved truth.
|
||||||
|
- The graph supports partial chains such as `fact -> candidate feature`,
|
||||||
|
`fact -> candidate capability`, `candidate capability -> candidate ability`,
|
||||||
|
and `candidate ability -> draft scope`.
|
||||||
|
- Existing approved dependency graph behavior remains stable for repo-scoping.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## T06: Transparent Quality Criteria For Generated Abstractions
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
```task
|
||||||
|
id: RREG-WP-0018-T06
|
||||||
|
status: todo
|
||||||
|
priority: medium
|
||||||
|
state_hub_task_id: "4b74a058-b759-42d2-a243-7134dd907093"
|
||||||
|
```
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Add reviewable quality criteria that apply to generated features,
|
||||||
|
capabilities, abilities, scope drafts, and intent drafts.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Acceptance criteria:
|
||||||
|
- Criteria cover source grounding, native utility, abstraction coherence,
|
||||||
|
sibling-repo boundary awareness, template contamination, and scope-vs-intent
|
||||||
|
separation.
|
||||||
|
- Criteria can invalidate or downgrade generated items before review, but do not
|
||||||
|
deterministically accept them as truth.
|
||||||
|
- Criteria outcomes are exposed in API/UI reports and assessment artifacts.
|
||||||
|
- Railiance layer boundaries are treated as evidence for review, not as
|
||||||
|
automatically accepted architecture claims.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## T07: Re-Run And Compare The Dataset
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
```task
|
||||||
|
id: RREG-WP-0018-T07
|
||||||
|
status: todo
|
||||||
|
priority: medium
|
||||||
|
state_hub_task_id: "cd1a3c14-076b-42da-8319-48310a964611"
|
||||||
|
```
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
After implementation, rerun the current repository dataset and compare the new
|
||||||
|
results against the sparse baseline.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Acceptance criteria:
|
||||||
|
- Each Railiance repo has source-linked candidate capabilities/features or a
|
||||||
|
documented reason why generation withheld them.
|
||||||
|
- `ops-warden` and `vergabe-teilnahme` no longer prefer template README text
|
||||||
|
over repo-specific evidence.
|
||||||
|
- Dependency graph element counts are non-zero for repositories with facts.
|
||||||
|
- The comparison report makes it easy to judge whether the new result is better
|
||||||
|
than the previous sparse output.
|
||||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user