voyage/templates/trekbrief-template.md
Kjell Tore Guttormsen 736ae55d66 feat(voyage): S6 — v5.5 brief framing enforcement (brief_version 2.2)
Implements the CLAUDE.md cross-cutting invariant "brief framing must match
operator intent" as a controlled brief_version 2.1->2.2 bump (operator option A1).
Three defense layers, version-gated at >=2.2 so existing 2.0/2.1 briefs stay
valid (forward + backward compatible), mirroring the phase_signals >=2.1 gate:

- L1 framing: enum field (preserve|refine|replace|new-direction). Enum-checked
  on any version when present (BRIEF_INVALID_FRAMING); missing at >=2.2 ->
  BRIEF_MISSING_FRAMING. /trekbrief Phase 2.5 collects it BEFORE any brief prose
  (non-skippable, even in --quick).
- L2 memory alignment: new brief-reviewer dimension 6 comparing brief Intent/Goal
  + framing against operator memory for explicit contradictions; degrades to
  score 5 (N/A) when no memory context is supplied. Wired into Phase 4e gate
  (memory_alignment.score >= 4).
- L3 obligatory ## TL;DR (<=5 content lines) at >=2.2; soft cap ->
  BRIEF_TLDR_TOO_LONG warning.

trekreview briefs are exempt from the framing/TL;DR gate. Handover 1 PUBLIC
CONTRACT doc, README "What's new", and the CLAUDE.md invariant + agents table
(brief-reviewer 5->6 dimensions) updated to 2.2 (schema axis only; plugin
version badge + CHANGELOG remain S10).

Iron Law followed: validator tests red->green first. Tests 586 -> 606
(+20, 604 pass / 2 skip). claude plugin validate passes (pre-existing
CLAUDE.md root-context warning unchanged).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01LqBYc8Ltrk7LipyJmGxXiB
2026-06-18 13:09:50 +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 + gemini}
  • 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.