---
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.