voyage/templates/trekbrief-template.md
Kjell Tore Guttormsen 1ca48e0cd0 release(v5.10.1): drop gemini-bridge from the pipeline; correct the T1 §6 PoC status
gemini-bridge is dropped by operator directive (three repetitions). The drop is
permanent, not a wait-for-SDK-upgrade state, so the change clears every LIVE
surface that could still steer a run toward the agent and leaves the historical
record alone.

Live surfaces cleared: agents/gemini-bridge.md deleted; trekresearch (bridge
launch block, --local help, high-effort always-on pair, stats record,
degradation list), trekplan, trekbrief, research-orchestrator (mode table,
agent table, prompting block, summary line), README (feature prose, mode table,
agent prose, mermaid EXTERNAL node, conditional legend, optional-MCP
requirement, --local section), CLAUDE.md, settings.json (the whole
trekresearch.geminiBridge block), both templates, architecture.md,
command-modes.md.

trekplan high-effort Adversarial Pass 2 now degrades EXPLICITLY: it emits its
section with status "unavailable, skipped" instead of failing or vanishing. A
high-effort plan carrying no Pass 2 marker is indistinguishable from one whose
Pass 2 crashed, which is the failure mode this wording exists to prevent.

gemini_used is deliberately KEPT as a vestigial trekresearch stats field pinned
to false. Removing it would break the observability export schema for existing
consumers, and the directive was about the agent, not the field.

Not touched: CHANGELOG history and the measurement/decision docs keep their
gemini references. They record what a past version did or what was measured
then; rewriting them is the same defect class as bumping a version string
inside a measurement doc.

Driven test-first. Five new pins in tests/lib/doc-consistency.test.mjs, verified
RED before the edits, including a KNOWN-POSITIVE CONTROL asserting the
historical records still DO carry gemini references — so the empty result on
live surfaces is a measurement and not a broken query (Verifiseringsloven
ansikt 4). Agent inventory 24 -> 23 (20 spawnable + 3 orchestrator reference
docs); the <example>-block floor moves 34 -> 32 because an agent legitimately
left the inventory, not because examples went missing from a surviving one.

Docs: docs/T1-cc26-delegated-orchestration.md §8 item 3 claimed both the §6
synthesis-agent PoC and the §5 bake-off were "designed but unbuilt". That was
written in S7 and falsified the same afternoon by S12, which ran the §6 PoC and
recorded Δ main-context (faithful flow) = 0.0%, NEGATIVE. The stale wording is
what caused the settled PoC to be re-ordered as new work on 2026-09-02, so it is
struck rather than deleted and §6 gained a RUN AND DECLINED status block. The
finding is structural, not stochastic: Phase 5 spawns the exploration swarm
foreground (trekplan.md:158,338-341), so the outputs are already resident in
main before Phase 7 — delegating only the Phase-7 digest evicts nothing.

Also measured 2026-09-03 (CC 2.1.259): claude -p --output-format stream-json
runs on subscription auth with no ANTHROPIC_API_KEY and now emits a
subagent_stats block, so S12's environment-block premise is half stale. Recorded
in §8 item 4. It lowers the cost of §5; it changes nothing about §6.

Suite 1041 (1039/0/2), up from 1036 by exactly the five tests added.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-03 20:29:39 +02:00

6.1 KiB

type brief_version created task slug project_dir research_topics research_status auto_research interview_turns source framing phase_signals
trekbrief 2.2
YYYY-MM-DD
{one-line task description}
slug
.claude/projects/{YYYY-MM-DD}-{slug}/
N
pending false
N
interview | manual
preserve | refine | replace | new-direction
phase effort
research standard
phase effort
plan standard
phase effort
execute standard
phase effort
review standard

Task: {title}

Generated by /trekbrief on {YYYY-MM-DD}. This brief is the contract between requirements and planning. /trekplan reads it to produce the implementation plan. Every decision in the plan must trace back to content in this brief.

TL;DR

≤ 5 lines. The framing-anchored one-glance summary: what this brief asks for and how it relates to prior operator intent (framing: {preserve | refine | replace | new-direction}). Written FIRST so a reader catches a wrong premise before reading the full brief. Required at brief_version ≥ 2.2.

{≤5-line summary.}

Intent

Why are we doing this? What is the motivation, user need, or strategic context? 3-5 sentences. Load-bearing for the plan — every implementation decision must trace back to this intent.

{Intent paragraph. Answers "why bother?".}

Goal

What does success look like concretely? What state will the system be in when this is done? 1 paragraph. Specific enough to disagree with.

{Goal paragraph.}

Non-Goals

What is explicitly out of scope? Prevents plan-critic and scope-guardian from flagging gaps for things we deliberately do not do.

  • {non-goal 1}
  • {non-goal 2}

Constraints

Technical, time, or resource limitations. Hard boundaries the plan must respect.

  • {constraint 1}
  • {constraint 2}

Preferences

Preferred patterns, frameworks, libraries, or approaches. Soft constraints (the plan may deviate with justification).

  • {preference 1}
  • {preference 2}

Non-Functional Requirements

Performance, security, accessibility, scalability, or other quality attributes. Quantified where possible.

  • {NFR 1 — e.g., "p95 response time < 200ms"}
  • {NFR 2 — e.g., "Zero new npm dependencies"}

Success Criteria

Falsifiable, command-checkable conditions that define "done". Each must be verifiable by running a specific command or observing a specific system behavior.

  • {criterion — e.g., "All existing tests pass: npm test exits 0"}
  • {criterion — e.g., "New endpoint returns 200: curl -s localhost:3000/api/health | jq .status"ok""}
  • {criterion — e.g., "No TypeScript errors: npx tsc --noEmit exits 0"}

Do NOT write vague criteria:

  • "It should work" (not testable)
  • "The feature is implemented" (not falsifiable)
  • "Performance is acceptable" (no baseline given)

Research Plan

Explicit research topics that must be answered before /trekplan can produce a high-confidence plan. Each topic is phrased as a research question ready to feed into /trekresearch. Topics may be empty (N=0) for trivial tasks where the codebase alone is sufficient context.

{If research_topics = 0, write a single line: "No external research needed — the codebase and this brief contain sufficient context for planning."}

Topic 1: {Short title}

  • Why this matters: {How the plan depends on this answer. Which steps or decisions cannot be made confidently without it.}
  • Research question: "{Exact question to feed to /trekresearch. One sentence, ends in ?.}"
  • Suggested invocation: /trekresearch --project {project_dir} --external "{question}"
  • Required for plan steps: {which kinds of steps will consume this — e.g., "migration strategy", "library selection", "threat model"}
  • Confidence needed: {high | medium | low}
  • Estimated cost: {quick — inline research | standard — agent swarm | deep — with contrarian}
  • Scope hint: {local | external | both}

Topic 2: {Short title}

  • Why this matters: ...
  • Research question: "..."
  • Suggested invocation: /trekresearch --project {project_dir} ...
  • Required for plan steps: ...
  • Confidence needed: ...
  • Estimated cost: ...
  • Scope hint: ...

Open Questions / Assumptions

Things still uncertain after the interview. These are carried as [ASSUMPTION] entries into the plan and flagged to the user for review.

  • {question or assumption 1}
  • {question or assumption 2}

Prior Attempts

What has been tried before and what happened. Leave blank for fresh tasks. Prior attempts are load-bearing — they prevent the plan from repeating known failures.

{Prior attempts narrative, or "None — fresh task."}

Metadata

  • Created: {YYYY-MM-DD}
  • Interview turns: {N}
  • Auto-research opted in: {yes | no}
  • Source: {trekbrief interview | manual}

How to continue

Manual (default):

# Run each research topic (order does not matter):
/trekresearch --project {project_dir} --external "{Topic 1 question}"
/trekresearch --project {project_dir} --external "{Topic 2 question}"

# Then plan:
/trekplan --project {project_dir}

# Then execute:
/trekexecute --project {project_dir}

Auto (opt-in during /trekbrief): research and planning run automatically; only execution is manual.