Kjell Tore Guttormsen 14ecda886c feat(voyage)!: bulk content rewrite ultra -> voyage/trek prose [skip-docs]

Sed-pipeline (16 patterns, longest-match-first) sweeper residuelle ultra*-treff
i prose, command-narrativ, agent-prompts, hook-kommentarer, doc-prosa.

Pipeline-utvidelser fra V4-prompten:
- BSD-syntax [[:<:]]ultra[[:>:]] istedenfor \bultra\b (BSD sed mangler \b)
- 6 compound-patterns for ultraplan/ultraexecute/ultraresearch/ultrabrief/
  ultrareview/ultracontinue uten -local-suffiks
- ultra*-stats glob -> trek*-stats glob
- Linje-eksklusjon redusert til ultra-cc-architect (Q8); session-state-
  eksklusjonen var over-protektiv
- File-eksklusjon utvidet til settings.json, package.json, plugin.json,
  hele .claude/-treet (gitignored + V5-territorium)

Q8-undantak holdt: architecture-discovery.mjs + project-discovery.mjs urort.
Filnavn-konvensjon holdt: .session-state.local.json + *.local.* preservert.

Manuell narrative-fix: tests/lib/agent-frontmatter.test.mjs linje 10
mangled "/ultra*-local" til "/voyage*-local" (ingen slik kommando finnes);
korrigert til "/trek*".

Residualer utenfor scope (V5 handterer): package.json + .claude-plugin/
plugin.json (Step 12-14 versjons-bump). .claude/* er gitignored
spec-historikk med tilsiktet BEFORE/AFTER-narrativ.

Part of voyage-rebrand session 3 (Wave 4 / Step 10).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>

2026-05-05 15:08:20 +02:00

3.8 KiB

Raw Blame History

type

created

question

confidence

dimensions

mcp_servers_used

local_agents_used

external_agents_used

trekresearch-brief

YYYY-MM-DD

{research question}

0.0-1.0

N

list

list

list

{Research Question Title}

Generated by trekresearch v{version} on {YYYY-MM-DD}

Research Question

{The full research question as clarified during interview.}

Executive Summary

{3 sentences maximum. The answer, the confidence level, and the key caveat.}

Dimensions

Each dimension represents one facet of the research question, explored by both local and external agents. Confidence is rated per dimension.

{Dimension Name} -- Confidence: {high | medium | low | contradictory}

Local findings:

{Finding with source citation (file path or agent name)}

External findings:

{Finding with source citation (URL)}

Contradictions:

{If local and external disagree, explain both sides with evidence. Omit this sub-section if no contradictions exist for this dimension.}

Repeat for each dimension.

Local Context

Findings from codebase analysis agents. Omit sub-sections where no relevant findings exist.

Architecture

{Architecture patterns, tech stack, relevant components from architecture-mapper}

Dependencies

{Import chains, data flow, external integrations from dependency-tracer}

Conventions

{Coding patterns, naming, test conventions from convention-scanner}

History

{Recent changes, code ownership, hot files from git-historian}

External Knowledge

Findings from external research agents. Omit sub-sections where no relevant findings exist.

Best Practice

{Official documentation, recommended patterns from docs-researcher}

Alternatives

{Other approaches, competing solutions from community-researcher + contrarian-researcher}

Security

{CVEs, audit history, supply chain risks from security-researcher}

Known Issues

{Common pitfalls, gotchas, real-world problems from community-researcher}

Gemini Second Opinion

Independent research result from Gemini Deep Research. Provides a second perspective for triangulation. Omit this section if gemini-bridge was not used or was unavailable.

{Gemini findings reformatted into key findings, sources cited, and areas of agreement/disagreement with other agents.}

Synthesis

Cross-cutting insights that emerge from combining local and external knowledge. This is NOT a summary of the sections above. It is NEW insight from triangulation -- things that only become visible when local context meets external knowledge.

{Example: "The codebase uses pattern X (local), but best practice has shifted to pattern Y (external). However, our dependency on Z (local) makes a direct migration impractical -- a hybrid approach using Y for new code while maintaining X for existing modules is the pragmatic path."}

Open Questions

Things that remain unresolved after research. Each is a candidate for follow-up research or an assumption to carry forward.

{Question 1 -- why it remains open}
{Question 2 -- why it remains open}

Recommendation

If the research was decision-relevant, provide a concrete recommendation with reasoning. If the research was exploratory (understanding, not deciding), omit this section entirely.

{Recommendation with rationale, citing specific findings from above.}

Sources

#	Source	Type	Quality	Used in
1	{URL or codebase path}	{official / community / codebase / gemini}	{high / medium / low}	{dimension name}

Quality assessment:

high — official documentation, verified codebase analysis, peer-reviewed
medium — reputable community source, well-maintained blog, established project
low — unverified, outdated (>1 year), single-source claim, opinion piece

3.8 KiB Raw Blame History