voyage/templates/trekbrief-template.md
Kjell Tore Guttormsen 2a35d067d9
chore(cleanup): R-b R3 — profiles, phase signals and the effort dialog removed, one fixed path per command
The four profiles, the resolver, the profile validator and docs/profiles.md go;
/trekbrief Phase 3.5 and the brief's phase_signals checks go (an older brief's
key is ignored); MANIFEST_PROFILE_DRIFT and profile_used go. Every Profile,
Composition rule, Sequencing gate and High-effort section leaves the commands.
Decision 209: /trekresearch runs the full swarm with contrarian-researcher as
wave 2 every run; /trekreview and the coordinator run all four passes with no
high-effort normalization. Voyage agents are spawned with no model (their own
model: opus applies); the two built-in spawns pass model "opus". --profile
stays in the parser as a retired flag that swallows its value. §Model & effort
moves to docs/architecture.md; the sequencing-gate eval case goes.

Files removed: 44 (43 from the R3 list + tests/commands/trekreview.test.mjs,
whose every test pinned removed text). Files edited: 43.
Tests: 2467 (2466 pass / 0 fail / 1 skipped) before, 2309 (2309 pass / 0 fail /
0 skipped) after. Durable check: all three groups green, none pending.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-11-07 21:12:57 +01:00

185 lines
6.3 KiB
Markdown

---
type: trekbrief
brief_version: "2.2"
created: {YYYY-MM-DD}
task: "{one-line task description}"
slug: {slug}
project_dir: .claude/projects/{YYYY-MM-DD}-{slug}/
research_topics: {N}
research_status: pending # pending | in_progress | complete | skipped
auto_research: false # true if user opted into Claude-managed research
interview_turns: {N}
source: {interview | manual}
# v5.5 — framing: how this brief relates to prior operator intent. REQUIRED at
# brief_version ≥ 2.2. One of: preserve | refine | replace | new-direction.
# AskUserQuestion-validated in /trekbrief Phase 2.5 BEFORE any brief prose is
# written — the first layer of the framing-alignment defense (guards against the
# plan polishing a wrong premise after a rejected iteration).
framing: {preserve | refine | replace | new-direction}
# Size class (ceremony by size), said aloud in the /trekbrief question round and
# overridable by the operator; it only ever moves up mid-task. Optional: absent
# reads as architectural (the heaviest). One of: small | bounded | architectural.
ceremony: {small | bounded | architectural}
# Where the brief and plan live: git (committed) or local (kept out of git via
# .git/info/exclude). The approval log is committed either way. Optional: absent
# reads as local. Asked once per task in the /trekbrief question round.
artifact_store: {git | local}
---
# 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 answers ok: `bash tests/health.sh` exits 0 (the script calls the endpoint and checks the status field)"}
- {criterion — e.g., "No TypeScript errors: `npm run typecheck` exits 0"}
Each command is written by the `voyage:writing-criteria` skill: the first
backticked span on the line, one command the criteria runner accepts, a script
under `tests/` for anything more, and able to go red. Otherwise the review
reports the criterion as NOT RUN.
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):
```bash
# 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.