94 lines
4.3 KiB
Markdown
94 lines
4.3 KiB
Markdown
# Next Session Prompt: Holistic UX Critique for Professional Multi-Agent Operations
|
|
|
|
You are continuing work in `beadboard`.
|
|
|
|
## Understanding Brief
|
|
BeadBoard is intended to be a **professional multi-agent communication + work management system** where:
|
|
- agents coordinate through Beads (`bd`) state,
|
|
- humans supervise, intervene, and steer,
|
|
- both can collaborate across multiple repos/projects.
|
|
|
|
This is **not** just a task board. It is an operations surface for swarm-style execution, communication, assignment, and recovery.
|
|
|
|
## Recent work completed (must understand before critique)
|
|
1. `bd`/Dolt recovery was performed after severe divergence:
|
|
- prior broken state: Dolt showed only a few issues while historical stores had hundreds,
|
|
- repaired state now shows healthy inventory (381 issues) and non-empty `bd ready`.
|
|
2. Runtime assumptions changed:
|
|
- `bd` upgraded to `0.56.1`.
|
|
- Dolt server mode is operationally relevant (`127.0.0.1:3307`).
|
|
3. `bd` command execution was moved toward PATH-based portability and clearer setup failure handling.
|
|
|
|
Do not re-do this recovery unless evidence shows a new regression.
|
|
|
|
## First required step (before UX critique)
|
|
Audit current local uncommitted work and summarize it in UX terms.
|
|
|
|
Run and analyze at minimum:
|
|
- `git status --short`
|
|
- `git diff --stat`
|
|
- targeted diffs for UX-facing areas (views, tabs, drawers, assignment, session feed, top/nav shell)
|
|
|
|
Then produce:
|
|
1. what changes are incomplete but directionally correct,
|
|
2. what changes conflict with intended product behavior,
|
|
3. what changes increase accidental complexity.
|
|
|
|
## Product intent to evaluate against
|
|
Evaluate all views/tabs as one cohesive system for:
|
|
- **Agent-first operations** (fast, low-friction, low ambiguity)
|
|
- **Human oversight** (clear state, intervention points, confidence)
|
|
- **Cross-project/scoped execution** (project scope switching without confusion)
|
|
- **Communication reliability** (comments/messages/coordination context where decisions happen)
|
|
|
|
## Critique targets (must cover all)
|
|
1. Information architecture across main views/tabs.
|
|
2. Distinct role of each major surface (`Social`, `Graph`, `Sessions`, side panels, drawers).
|
|
3. Assignment UX consistency and discoverability.
|
|
4. Communication model UX (threads/comments/agent interactions) and where it breaks flow.
|
|
5. State clarity: ready vs blocked vs in-progress; ownership; handoff visibility.
|
|
6. Failure mode UX (server unavailable, path/config mismatches, stale data indicators).
|
|
7. Cognitive load: where operators need to context-switch too much.
|
|
8. Terminology consistency (`bead`, `task`, `swarm`, `molecule`, `session`, `agent`).
|
|
|
|
## Required outputs
|
|
### 1) UX Critique Report
|
|
Provide a structured critique with:
|
|
- **What is working** (keep)
|
|
- **What is ambiguous** (clarify)
|
|
- **What is broken/risky** (fix)
|
|
- severity per issue (`P0`, `P1`, `P2`)
|
|
- concrete file/component references
|
|
|
|
### 2) Target UX Model (recommended)
|
|
Propose a clean target model for view responsibilities:
|
|
- one-line purpose per view/tab,
|
|
- key interactions per surface,
|
|
- interactions that must be shared vs isolated.
|
|
|
|
### 3) Prioritized execution backlog
|
|
Create beads for follow-up work from critique findings:
|
|
- one bead per coherent unit,
|
|
- include scope/out-of-scope and acceptance criteria,
|
|
- preserve dependency correctness.
|
|
|
|
### 4) Minimal change strategy
|
|
Recommend a staged rollout plan that avoids large regressions:
|
|
- phase 1: low-risk high-value consistency fixes,
|
|
- phase 2: IA/view role cleanup,
|
|
- phase 3: deeper workflow refinements.
|
|
|
|
## Constraints
|
|
- Preserve current route model (`/` with `view=` query params).
|
|
- Keep changes grounded in actual implemented code (no speculative claims).
|
|
- Reuse shared components/logic; avoid one-off behavior per view.
|
|
- Keep language simple and operator-facing.
|
|
- **Approval gate:** Do not create any beads during discovery/brainstorming. First present findings + proposed bead backlog draft, then wait for explicit user approval before running any `bd create` commands.
|
|
|
|
## Quality bar
|
|
The critique should read like a professional product/UX architecture review for an agent operations platform, not generic UI feedback.
|
|
|
|
## Completion criteria
|
|
- Clear diagnosis of current UX shape using actual uncommitted code.
|
|
- Decision-ready target model for views/tabs and communication surfaces.
|
|
- Prioritized, execution-ready bead backlog generated from findings.
|