-
Inserts Planner -> planner_reviewer -> Coder -> Validator into the fixed Org Graph flow (was Planner -> Coder -> Validator), per docs/todo/org-graph-unification-phase1-review-gate-design.md. A new planner_reviewer role independently judges whether Planner's BRD/PRD/SDD/ Benchmark output is real structured content (not narrative prose) before Coder is allowed to start, with a 3-attempt retry loop and a narration heuristic informed by the real narrative-output incident (docs/todo/validator-test-script-narrative-output-issue.md). Also fixes, in the same code path: - The P0 bug in task-execution-resume-assumes-planner-artifacts-exist.md: resuming a task no longer assumes sdd/prd/benchmark artifacts exist -- falls through to real replanning when they don't. - A fresh-run KeyError (not resume-specific) when a self-planned graph omits the prd/benchmark node types. - agent_profile.migrated_from_profile was NOT NULL, which broke as soon as a role with no legacy Hermes profile (planner_reviewer) was recorded. org_node_lifecycle._REQUIRED_ARTIFACTS["coder"] is narrowed from (brd,prd,sdd,benchmark) to (sdd,) -- the old 4-artifact gate never actually blocked anything since artifact_write.py sets validation_status='passed' unconditionally; planner_reviewer is the first real semantic gate. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
-
Per CLAUDE.md's docs/ role split (todo = pending, done = shipped into the SDD/code): all seven Graph Engineering series items with a real implementation (B, D, E, F, G, H -- A had no separate doc, resolved directly in graphlemon_architecture.md; C is explicitly won't-do) now have their requirements+design docs moved from docs/todo/ to docs/done/, git mv'd to preserve history. Every cross-reference to the 12 moved files -- across the other moved docs themselves, graph-engineering-open-items.md, 2 Skill files, and 9 src/*.py docstrings/comments -- updated from docs/todo/<file> to docs/done/<file>. Verified no stale docs/todo/ references to any of the 12 filenames remain anywhere in the repo. graph-engineering-open-items.md itself stays in docs/todo/ (not moved) -- it's a living index that keeps gaining new entries from later comparison-note/gap-analysis passes (H itself was added this way, and a new item already appeared while this cleanup was in progress), not a single finished conclusion. Its own header now reflects that all of A/B/D/E/F/G/H are done and explains why it wasn't moved. Also fixed two pre-existing stray path references (missing todo/done/ prefix entirely, predating this cleanup) in its G section. Full src suite (625 tests) passes -- this is a pure documentation/comment change, no behavior touched. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
-
Implements docs/todo/validator-loop-until-dry-skill-design.md. Pure Skill + Agent-definition wiring, no execution-engine changes -- the convergence loop runs inside a single Work Node's one claude -p session (multi-turn tool use), not a graph_manifest-level cycle, so topological_layers()/ run_graph() are untouched. New Skill skills/unknown-scope-defect-sweep/SKILL.md: K=2 consecutive no-new-finding rounds to stop, 20-round hard cap, dedup key must be a structural identifier (file path + line, route path, package name) not a natural-language description (the same finding gets reworded call to call, so text-keyed dedup never converges), dedup set is "everything ever seen" not "everything confirmed" (the common bug the 14-step reference names: a rejected candidate reappearing as a false "new finding" every round). Each candidate is verified via qa-task-validation's existing PASS/FAIL/INCONCLUSIVE framework -- deliberately NOT root_cause_trace's three-perspective jury (F), since that answers a different question (root cause AFTER a failure) from this one (is this candidate real at all) -- documented in the design doc's own tradeoff note. Wired into agent_profile.py's FRONTMATTER["validator"]["skills"] and agents/validator/AGENTS.md's "必须加载" section with a concrete trigger signal (task description can't state an exact expected count/boundary up front). Only FR-4 (Skill wired into the rendered .claude/agents/validator.md) has deterministic, mockable behavior -- new test test_validator_references_unknown_scope_defect_sweep_skill. Acceptance criteria 1-3 (actually finds everything, actually dedups correctly, actually stops at the hard cap) need real multi-turn claude -p behavior, out of scope for mocked tests (RUN_REAL_AGENT_E2E=1 territory), same category of limitation as F's own real-concurrency-timing note. Full src suite (587 tests) passes with zero regressions. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
-
Implements docs/todo/dynamic-work-graph-design-skill-design.md. G already answered FR-2 (how to mark a parallel-eligible node group): no new field needed -- topological_layers() infers independence purely from depends_on/edges, so the new Skill's job is just "express real dependencies honestly, don't add fake ones." New Skill skills/design-dynamic-work-graph/SKILL.md: the node-boundary / zero_token-vs-needs_judgment / per-node self-contained task_prompt methodology, wired into agent_profile.py's FRONTMATTER for coder and validator (Planner's own doc-chain path is untouched -- FR-4 only names Coder/Validator). work_graph_plan.py: new _GENERIC_PROMPT_TEMPLATE + generic_node_prompt_builder(), used whenever org_node != 'planner'. Planner keeps its existing fixed brd/prd/sdd/benchmark/... chain (_PROMPT_TEMPLATE) completely unchanged -- zero regression risk to the one real production planning path. Scoped per the requirements doc's non-goal #1 ("prove the mechanism works, don't cover every real scenario yet"): does NOT wire into e2e_pipeline.py::implement_code()'s existing single-node production path. New tests prove the mechanism itself: a Coder scenario that naturally splits into 3 independent modules produces a correctly-shaped graph_manifest, topological_layers() puts all three in one concurrent layer (ties E directly to G), and generic_node_prompt_builder drives it through run_graph() to completion. Full src suite (580 tests) passes with zero regressions. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> -
Real incident (2026-08-06): the skill-content migration task and the skill detail page bug fix were two separate tasks. Neither was asked to verify that migrated content is actually reachable through the DB-backed lookup the detail page uses. Both passed their own tests cleanly -- because both only ever exercised the mechanism against seeded/mocked fixture data, never checked whether the real producer's real output actually exists in the real system. The result: the skill detail page returned "not found" for all 12 real migrated skills, and nobody caught it until a human clicked through the real console. qa-task-validation (§8): passing unit tests against seeded fixtures proves the mechanism is correct given valid input -- it does not prove that input exists for real. When a feature reads data another task/process was supposed to have already written, Validator must independently query the real running system against a real (not newly-created) object. project-sdd-planning (§10): when a task's acceptance depends on another task's real output, the Benchmark must name a real, specific object as the acceptance anchor, not just describe the mechanism. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
