Omar SobhandClaude Opus 5
5c2c63f8e8
Phase 4 of the plan, plus the PLAN_COMPLETE decision and the gitea_forge
cleanup from Phase 5.
THE REVIEW UI
mission_plan and mission_roster have been complete and reachable by curl
since they shipped, with zero frontend. That matters more than a missing
screen usually would: the decide step is not a convenience, it IS the
safety mechanism. Approving a plan replaces the mission's phases; approving
a roster flips it to the composed engine. A gate nobody can reach is a gate
that is always open or always shut.
MissionProposalDrawer, modelled on LevelUpDrawer which already does
load → review → decide. Reached from a mission's SETUP tab. Verified end to
end against the live backend, not just compiled: a model proposed a roster,
approval flipped the mission to `composed`, and approval on a non-draft
mission was refused.
The plan view shows each phase's done_when, and says plainly when one is
absent — a phase without a completion condition is never judged and reports
completed whatever it did, so its absence is the thing worth seeing.
AND THE DEFECT BUILDING IT FOUND
Every refusal path computed a precise reason — "the mission is running, not
a draft", "no node can boot that backend any more" — logged it to stderr,
and returned a bare {"error":"bad request"}. The person who needed the
sentence was the one clicking Approve; they got two words, and the reason
went to a server log they cannot read.
ApiError::Refused(String) carries it now. Same argument ApiError::Unavailable
was added for ("a 500 with 'internal error' sent them looking for a bug that
was not there"), one status code down. Live: the 400 now reads "this mission
is completed — a roster can only be approved while it is a draft, because
approving one rewrites how the mission will run".
PLAN_COMPLETE, decided
The Skill-Use measurement found that int-xx-marker-protocol documents
PLAN_COMPLETE and task_card_parser never implemented it, so an agent
following the skill exactly was silently ignored. Implemented rather than
removed from the skill: the planner needs a way to say it is done
specifying, and agents already emit it.
Marker ids are now strictly INT-<digits>. `starts_with("INT-")` accepted the
range form `INT-01..02` — observed live — which parsed into an id matching
no real item, so a task card appeared for something that did not exist while
the two items it covered stayed open. Rejecting is right: an ignored marker
is visible, a plausible row is not.
GITEA_FORGE, REMOVED
Named in nine places, defined in none. Harmless while provision_claw ignored
the bundle list; once the list was honoured, an undefined name became a
capability an agent is told it has and does not. Removed from seven team
templates, a workflow recipe, the auto-provision path, and a dropdown a user
could pick it from.
A new test asserts every bundle a template names is defined in the runtime
config — and it immediately found `web_fetch` in two templates I had missed
removing by hand. Same shape as the skill-binding test, one layer up.
Agents reach the forge through git over HTTPS with the ambient GITEA_TOKEN,
which is why nothing ever broke.
Full workspace suite green (106 binaries); frontend builds clean.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <[email protected]>
117 lines
4.3 KiB
TOML
117 lines
4.3 KiB
TOML
key = "papers_research"
|
|
name = "Papers & Online Research"
|
|
description = "Pull, catalog, and summarize every paper we can find on a domain topic. Builds a local, offline-reference library of documents cited across future missions."
|
|
stack = ["research", "papers", "arxiv", "obsidian", "library"]
|
|
category = "research"
|
|
default_topology = "pipeline"
|
|
risk_profile = "research_web_readonly"
|
|
# `web_fetch` removed: no such bundle is defined, and provision_claw now
|
|
# honours this list — agents reach a page with `curl` through Bash.
|
|
mcp_bundles = ["clawmates_door", "clawmates_skills"]
|
|
version = 1
|
|
|
|
[[roles]]
|
|
slot = "domain_scout"
|
|
order_idx = 0
|
|
skills = ["arxiv-daily", "web-search-triage", "decompose-int-items"]
|
|
system_prompt = """
|
|
You are the DOMAIN SCOUT of a Papers & Online Research team.
|
|
|
|
Given a topic, generate a saturated seed set of queries — synonyms,
|
|
adjacent subfields, canonical author names, workshop venues — and
|
|
harvest candidate papers from arXiv, Semantic Scholar, ACM DL, and
|
|
conference proceedings pages. For each candidate, capture:
|
|
|
|
- Title, authors, venue, year, DOI/arXiv id, canonical URL
|
|
- Citation count (Semantic Scholar) as a proxy for signal
|
|
- Abstract verbatim (no paraphrase)
|
|
|
|
Output goes to `Papers/<topic>/candidates.jsonl` — one line per paper.
|
|
Never drop candidates because "they look weak"; the reader filters.
|
|
Deduplicate by DOI/arXiv id.
|
|
"""
|
|
brain_seed = """
|
|
# Domain scout memory seed
|
|
|
|
## Query discipline
|
|
- Start with the operator's phrase verbatim, then generate 5+ variants
|
|
before harvesting. Homophones and synonyms are the recall trap.
|
|
- Cross-reference author lists — a paper's citations often hide the
|
|
next 3 papers worth reading.
|
|
|
|
## Redlines
|
|
- Never invent DOIs or citation counts. If a field is unavailable,
|
|
write null.
|
|
- Do not filter on citation count at the scout stage — the reader
|
|
decides.
|
|
"""
|
|
|
|
[[roles]]
|
|
slot = "paper_reader"
|
|
order_idx = 1
|
|
skills = ["structured-paper-summary", "workspace-repo-commit-protocol"]
|
|
system_prompt = """
|
|
You are the PAPER READER of a Papers & Online Research team.
|
|
|
|
For each candidate from the scout, fetch the PDF, extract text, and
|
|
produce a structured summary:
|
|
|
|
- Problem statement (1-2 sentences)
|
|
- Method — new technique, not the recap of prior work
|
|
- Key result (the strongest single claim, quantified)
|
|
- Assumptions / limitations the authors themselves flag
|
|
- Adjacent papers cited that we should also pull
|
|
|
|
Output goes to `Papers/<topic>/<paper-slug>.md` with frontmatter
|
|
carrying full metadata. Never summarize from the abstract alone; if the
|
|
PDF is unavailable, mark the paper `[read: abstract only]` in a
|
|
warning callout.
|
|
"""
|
|
brain_seed = """
|
|
# Paper reader memory seed
|
|
|
|
## Discipline
|
|
- Method summaries beat abstract summaries. The abstract sells; the
|
|
method reveals.
|
|
- Every claim in the summary carries a page number: `(§3.2, p.6)`.
|
|
- When a paper is behind a paywall and no preprint exists, note that
|
|
explicitly. Never fabricate the missing content.
|
|
|
|
## Signal calibration
|
|
- Reproducibility >>> novelty for our library. A paper with released
|
|
code + data is worth 3 without.
|
|
"""
|
|
|
|
[[roles]]
|
|
slot = "library_curator"
|
|
order_idx = 2
|
|
skills = ["obsidian-vault-conventions", "duplicate-detection", "workspace-repo-commit-protocol", "small-focused-commits"]
|
|
system_prompt = """
|
|
You are the LIBRARY CURATOR of a Papers & Online Research team.
|
|
|
|
You own `Papers/`. Enforce structure:
|
|
|
|
- One folder per topic; one markdown note per paper
|
|
- Frontmatter is mandatory (title, authors, venue, year, doi,
|
|
citations, tags)
|
|
- Cross-topic wikilinks connect papers that should be read together
|
|
- A per-topic `README.md` index summarizes the strongest 3 papers,
|
|
the most-cited paper, and the open questions
|
|
|
|
Commit in small, purposeful PRs. Never delete a paper note without
|
|
explicit operator sign-off — even a weak paper is a signal about the
|
|
field's shape.
|
|
"""
|
|
brain_seed = """
|
|
# Library curator memory seed
|
|
|
|
## Vault shape
|
|
- `Papers/<topic>/README.md` is the entrypoint. `Papers/<topic>/<slug>.md`
|
|
are the leaf notes.
|
|
- Tags: `#paper/<topic>`, `#paper/method/<class>`, `#paper/reproducible`.
|
|
|
|
## Redlines
|
|
- Do not silently drop candidates from the scout's jsonl. Every candidate
|
|
gets either a full note or an explicit `[skipped: reason]` stub.
|
|
"""
|