129 lines
3.6 KiB
Markdown
129 lines
3.6 KiB
Markdown
# Next Session: v5 Skill Validation + Full Critique
|
|
|
|
## Objective
|
|
|
|
Do **not** implement new features first. Use this session to pressure-test the finished `beadboard-driver` v5 skill end-to-end, critique it hard, and produce a prioritized fix list.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Scope
|
|
|
|
Validate and critique all of:
|
|
|
|
- `skills/beadboard-driver/SKILL.md`
|
|
- `skills/beadboard-driver/project.template.md`
|
|
- `skills/beadboard-driver/references/*.md`
|
|
- `skills/beadboard-driver/scripts/*.mjs`
|
|
- `skills/beadboard-driver/scripts/lib/driver-lib.mjs`
|
|
- `skills/beadboard-driver/tests/*.contract.test.mjs`
|
|
- `tests/skills/beadboard-driver/*.test.ts`
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Ground Rules
|
|
|
|
1. Treat this as an adversarial review, not a celebration.
|
|
2. Evidence before assertions: every finding must cite command output or file evidence.
|
|
3. Prefer identifying regressions, ambiguities, missing guarantees, and operator confusion risks.
|
|
4. For every critique finding, include a concrete fix proposal.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Session Steps
|
|
|
|
### Step 1: Context Recovery
|
|
|
|
```bash
|
|
cd /mnt/c/Users/Zenchant/codex/beadboard
|
|
git log --oneline -12
|
|
bd show beadboard-maf
|
|
bd ready
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### Step 2: Run Full Gates (Baseline)
|
|
|
|
```bash
|
|
npm run typecheck
|
|
npm run lint
|
|
npm run test
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Capture exact pass/fail state and any warnings.
|
|
|
|
### Step 3: Run Skill-Local Contract Suite Explicitly
|
|
|
|
```bash
|
|
node skills/beadboard-driver/tests/run-tests.mjs
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### Step 4: Manual Runbook Dry-Run Against SKILL.md
|
|
|
|
Walk through SKILL.md steps exactly as written and verify each command exists/is actionable.
|
|
|
|
Required checks:
|
|
|
|
- Preflight commands run cleanly (or fail with useful remediation)
|
|
- Mail delegate validation behaves as documented
|
|
- Runbook commands use real flags (`--assignee`, slot hook flow, etc.)
|
|
- No deprecated command surfaces remain
|
|
- `project.md` lifecycle guidance is clear for first vs later agents
|
|
|
|
### Step 5: Documentation Quality Critique
|
|
|
|
Critique every major doc on:
|
|
|
|
- Cold-start clarity (can a new agent execute without guessing?)
|
|
- Command accuracy (flags/surfaces real and current)
|
|
- Consistency across docs (no contradictions)
|
|
- Operational safety (state, mail, evidence, closeout)
|
|
- Cognitive load (too verbose vs too vague)
|
|
|
|
### Step 6: Test Coverage Critique
|
|
|
|
Identify missing coverage, especially:
|
|
|
|
- Global install assumptions (`bd`, `bb/beadboard`)
|
|
- Linux/WSL path discovery edge cases
|
|
- Mail delegate misconfiguration and mismatch paths
|
|
- `bb-mail-shim` lifecycle and invalid message ID behavior
|
|
- `project.template.md` contract assumptions not exercised by tests
|
|
|
|
### Step 7: Produce Findings Artifact
|
|
|
|
Create a single markdown report under:
|
|
|
|
- `docs/reviews/YYYY-MM-DD-beadboard-driver-v5-audit.md`
|
|
|
|
Required report structure:
|
|
|
|
1. Executive verdict (ship-ready / conditionally-ready / not-ready)
|
|
2. Findings by severity (Critical, High, Medium, Low)
|
|
3. Evidence per finding (commands + file refs)
|
|
4. Proposed fixes per finding
|
|
5. Suggested bead breakdown for remediation
|
|
|
|
### Step 8: Create Remediation Beads
|
|
|
|
From findings, create actionable beads using:
|
|
|
|
- `beadboard-<new-epic>.x.x` naming format
|
|
- explicit `Scope`, `Out of Scope`, `Success Criteria`
|
|
- correct dependency order
|
|
|
|
### Step 9: Session Closeout
|
|
|
|
- Update bead notes with evidence summary
|
|
- If reusable lesson emerged, create canonical memory bead; otherwise note no new memory
|
|
- Update this file (`NEXT_SESSION_PROMPT.md`) with next concrete action
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Deliverable Definition of Done
|
|
|
|
This session is done only when all are true:
|
|
|
|
1. Gates executed with captured output.
|
|
2. Full skill critique written to `docs/reviews/...`.
|
|
3. Remediation bead set created with dependency graph.
|
|
4. Clear go/no-go verdict stated with evidence.
|
|
|