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

186 lines
6.1 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}
# v5.1 — per-phase effort + model signal (Phase 3.5).
# `effort` ∈ {low, standard, high}. Omit `model:` for `standard` so composition
# falls through to profile resolver. Force-stop alternative is the commented
# `phase_signals_partial: true` below (mutually exclusive with `phase_signals`).
phase_signals:
- phase: research
effort: standard
- phase: plan
effort: standard
- phase: execute
effort: standard
- phase: review
effort: standard
# phase_signals_partial: true # uncomment to record force-stop instead of phase_signals
---
# 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):
```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.