Rework single-agent workflows; add write-tests; remove comparative-plan
- claude-agent → standard-agent (complexity≥8, spec_adherence≥9 → Sonnet-class) - smart-agent: complexity≥9 → Opus; documents MiniMax not in registry - functional-agent: labels=[airouter], cost_efficiency≥9 → Qwen3.6 - write-tests: two-node DAG (write_tests → review_coverage), spec-driven test authoring with coverage gap report in JSON - Remove comparative-plan (superseded by tdd-impl audit pattern) Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Paul O'Reilly
@@ -1,173 +0,0 @@
|
||||
name: comparative-plan
|
||||
version: 1
|
||||
description: "3-way comparative planning: two models plan independently, cross-review, then synthesize"
|
||||
|
||||
params:
|
||||
required:
|
||||
task_description:
|
||||
type: string
|
||||
description: "What to plan — the task or feature to design"
|
||||
project_id:
|
||||
type: string
|
||||
description: "Target project identifier"
|
||||
optional:
|
||||
model_a:
|
||||
type: string
|
||||
default: null
|
||||
description: "Override model A endpoint (auto-selected from registry if omitted)"
|
||||
model_b:
|
||||
type: string
|
||||
default: null
|
||||
description: "Override model B endpoint (auto-selected from registry if omitted)"
|
||||
best_practices:
|
||||
type: list
|
||||
default:
|
||||
- api-design
|
||||
- spec-driven-development
|
||||
- test-driven-development
|
||||
- security-architecture
|
||||
description: "Best practice topics to review against"
|
||||
repo:
|
||||
type: string
|
||||
default: null
|
||||
description: "Git repo URL to clone for context (optional)"
|
||||
|
||||
nodes:
|
||||
plan_a:
|
||||
name: "Plan A"
|
||||
prompt: |
|
||||
Create a detailed implementation plan for the following task:
|
||||
|
||||
{{ task_description }}
|
||||
|
||||
## Instructions
|
||||
- Follow spec-driven development methodology
|
||||
- Structure your plan with: Overview, Phases, Files to create/modify, Test strategy, Dependencies
|
||||
- Be specific about data models, API contracts, and interfaces
|
||||
- Consider security, error handling, and edge cases
|
||||
- Write your final plan to /workspace/project/output.md
|
||||
harness: planning/v1
|
||||
requirements:
|
||||
min_scores:
|
||||
complexity: 7
|
||||
spec_adherence: 8
|
||||
|
||||
plan_b:
|
||||
name: "Plan B"
|
||||
prompt: |
|
||||
Create a detailed implementation plan for the following task:
|
||||
|
||||
{{ task_description }}
|
||||
|
||||
## Instructions
|
||||
- Follow spec-driven development methodology
|
||||
- Structure your plan with: Overview, Phases, Files to create/modify, Test strategy, Dependencies
|
||||
- Be specific about data models, API contracts, and interfaces
|
||||
- Consider security, error handling, and edge cases
|
||||
- Write your final plan to /workspace/project/output.md
|
||||
harness: planning/v1
|
||||
requirements:
|
||||
min_scores:
|
||||
complexity: 7
|
||||
spec_adherence: 8
|
||||
|
||||
review_a_of_b:
|
||||
name: "Review: A reviews B's plan"
|
||||
depends_on: [plan_a, plan_b]
|
||||
prompt: |
|
||||
You are reviewing an implementation plan against best practices.
|
||||
|
||||
## Best Practices to Check Against
|
||||
Read and apply these best practice topics: {{ best_practices | join(', ') }}
|
||||
|
||||
## Plan to Review
|
||||
The following plan was produced by another model. Review it critically.
|
||||
|
||||
<<ARTIFACT:plan_b:output>>
|
||||
|
||||
## Instructions
|
||||
1. Read each relevant best practice file from /best-practices/
|
||||
2. Check the plan against each practice
|
||||
3. List specific, numbered improvement points
|
||||
4. For each point, cite which best practice it violates or could better follow
|
||||
5. Be concrete — say what should change, not just that something is wrong
|
||||
|
||||
Write your review to /workspace/project/output.md
|
||||
harness: planning/v1
|
||||
requirements:
|
||||
min_scores:
|
||||
spec_adherence: 8
|
||||
|
||||
review_b_of_a:
|
||||
name: "Review: B reviews A's plan"
|
||||
depends_on: [plan_a, plan_b]
|
||||
prompt: |
|
||||
You are reviewing an implementation plan against best practices.
|
||||
|
||||
## Best Practices to Check Against
|
||||
Read and apply these best practice topics: {{ best_practices | join(', ') }}
|
||||
|
||||
## Plan to Review
|
||||
The following plan was produced by another model. Review it critically.
|
||||
|
||||
<<ARTIFACT:plan_a:output>>
|
||||
|
||||
## Instructions
|
||||
1. Read each relevant best practice file from /best-practices/
|
||||
2. Check the plan against each practice
|
||||
3. List specific, numbered improvement points
|
||||
4. For each point, cite which best practice it violates or could better follow
|
||||
5. Be concrete — say what should change, not just that something is wrong
|
||||
|
||||
Write your review to /workspace/project/output.md
|
||||
harness: planning/v1
|
||||
requirements:
|
||||
min_scores:
|
||||
spec_adherence: 8
|
||||
|
||||
synthesize:
|
||||
name: "Synthesize final plan"
|
||||
depends_on: [review_a_of_b, review_b_of_a]
|
||||
prompt: |
|
||||
You are synthesizing a final implementation plan from two competing plans and their cross-reviews.
|
||||
|
||||
## Original Task
|
||||
{{ task_description }}
|
||||
|
||||
## Plan A
|
||||
<<ARTIFACT:plan_a:output>>
|
||||
|
||||
## Plan B
|
||||
<<ARTIFACT:plan_b:output>>
|
||||
|
||||
## Review of Plan B (by the model that wrote Plan A)
|
||||
<<ARTIFACT:review_a_of_b:output>>
|
||||
|
||||
## Review of Plan A (by the model that wrote Plan B)
|
||||
<<ARTIFACT:review_b_of_a:output>>
|
||||
|
||||
## Instructions
|
||||
1. Identify the strongest elements from each plan
|
||||
2. Address all improvement points raised in both reviews
|
||||
3. Synthesize a single, improved plan that combines the best of both
|
||||
4. Structure: Overview, Phases, Files, Test strategy, Dependencies
|
||||
5. Flag any unresolved disagreements between the reviews
|
||||
|
||||
Write the final synthesized plan to /workspace/project/output.md
|
||||
harness: planning/v1
|
||||
requirements:
|
||||
min_scores:
|
||||
complexity: 8
|
||||
spec_adherence: 9
|
||||
creativity: 7
|
||||
|
||||
scoring:
|
||||
type: comparative_review
|
||||
reviews:
|
||||
- review_node: review_a_of_b
|
||||
scored_model_node: plan_b
|
||||
dimension: spec_adherence
|
||||
- review_node: review_b_of_a
|
||||
scored_model_node: plan_a
|
||||
dimension: spec_adherence
|
||||
method: fewer_improvement_points_wins
|
||||
49
workflows/functional-agent.yaml
Normal file
49
workflows/functional-agent.yaml
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
|
||||
name: functional-agent
|
||||
version: 1
|
||||
description: >
|
||||
Cost-efficient single-agent workflow via Airouter (Qwen3.6). Routes exclusively to
|
||||
the airouter dispatcher (labels: [airouter], cost_efficiency ≥ 9). Use for narrow,
|
||||
well-scoped tasks where throughput and cost matter — parallel subsystem work,
|
||||
bulk fixes, or tasks with explicit instructions.
|
||||
|
||||
Hard cap: 3 concurrent airouter tasks. No web search available in container.
|
||||
Keep prompts directive and single-file/single-concern scoped for best results.
|
||||
|
||||
params:
|
||||
required:
|
||||
task_description:
|
||||
type: string
|
||||
description: "Task prompt for the agent"
|
||||
project_id:
|
||||
type: string
|
||||
description: "Project identifier for task grouping"
|
||||
repo_url:
|
||||
type: string
|
||||
description: "Git repo URL for the agent to clone"
|
||||
agent_repo_url:
|
||||
type: string
|
||||
description: "Agent repo URL for branch-per-task persistence"
|
||||
optional:
|
||||
harness:
|
||||
type: string
|
||||
default: "code-airouter-repo/v1"
|
||||
description: "Harness to use. Override to change context/credentials (default: code-airouter-repo/v1)"
|
||||
space_id:
|
||||
type: string
|
||||
default: "default"
|
||||
description: "Space identifier"
|
||||
|
||||
nodes:
|
||||
agent:
|
||||
name: "agent"
|
||||
prompt: "{{ task_description }}"
|
||||
harness: "{{ harness }}"
|
||||
requirements:
|
||||
labels: [airouter]
|
||||
min_scores:
|
||||
cost_efficiency: 9
|
||||
on_success:
|
||||
- type: commit_pr
|
||||
params:
|
||||
repo_url: "{{ repo_url }}"
|
||||
agent_repo_url: "{{ agent_repo_url }}"
|
||||
48
workflows/smart-agent.yaml
Normal file
48
workflows/smart-agent.yaml
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
|
||||
name: smart-agent
|
||||
version: 1
|
||||
description: >
|
||||
High-capability single-agent workflow. Routes to the best available reasoning model
|
||||
(complexity ≥ 9 — currently claude-opus-4). Use for complex implementation, planning,
|
||||
or analysis tasks where quality matters more than cost.
|
||||
|
||||
MiniMax is not in the model registry and will not be auto-selected; use the
|
||||
minimax-code-repo or minimax-planning task templates directly for MiniMax tasks.
|
||||
|
||||
params:
|
||||
required:
|
||||
task_description:
|
||||
type: string
|
||||
description: "Task prompt for the agent"
|
||||
project_id:
|
||||
type: string
|
||||
description: "Project identifier for task grouping"
|
||||
repo_url:
|
||||
type: string
|
||||
description: "Git repo URL for the agent to clone"
|
||||
agent_repo_url:
|
||||
type: string
|
||||
description: "Agent repo URL for branch-per-task persistence"
|
||||
optional:
|
||||
harness:
|
||||
type: string
|
||||
default: "code-opus-repo/v1"
|
||||
description: "Harness to use. Override to change context/credentials (default: code-opus-repo/v1)"
|
||||
space_id:
|
||||
type: string
|
||||
default: "default"
|
||||
description: "Space identifier"
|
||||
|
||||
nodes:
|
||||
agent:
|
||||
name: "agent"
|
||||
prompt: "{{ task_description }}"
|
||||
harness: "{{ harness }}"
|
||||
requirements:
|
||||
min_scores:
|
||||
complexity: 9
|
||||
spec_adherence: 8
|
||||
on_success:
|
||||
- type: commit_pr
|
||||
params:
|
||||
repo_url: "{{ repo_url }}"
|
||||
agent_repo_url: "{{ agent_repo_url }}"
|
||||
@@ -1,15 +1,15 @@
|
||||
name: claude-agent
|
||||
name: standard-agent
|
||||
version: 1
|
||||
description: >
|
||||
Minimal single-agent workflow. One Claude code agent node.
|
||||
Use this as the standard wrapper when submitting simple single-agent tasks
|
||||
via POST /tasks with a workflow field.
|
||||
Standard single-agent workflow. Routes to a capable, balanced model
|
||||
(complexity ≥ 8, spec_adherence ≥ 9 — currently selects from Sonnet-class models).
|
||||
Default for most implementation tasks where quality and cost are balanced.
|
||||
|
||||
params:
|
||||
required:
|
||||
task_description:
|
||||
type: string
|
||||
description: "Task prompt for the Claude agent"
|
||||
description: "Task prompt for the agent"
|
||||
project_id:
|
||||
type: string
|
||||
description: "Project identifier for task grouping"
|
||||
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ params:
|
||||
harness:
|
||||
type: string
|
||||
default: "code-sonnet-repo/v1"
|
||||
description: "Harness to use (default: code-sonnet-repo/v1)"
|
||||
description: "Harness to use. Override to change context/credentials (default: code-sonnet-repo/v1)"
|
||||
space_id:
|
||||
type: string
|
||||
default: "default"
|
||||
@@ -34,6 +34,10 @@ nodes:
|
||||
name: "agent"
|
||||
prompt: "{{ task_description }}"
|
||||
harness: "{{ harness }}"
|
||||
requirements:
|
||||
min_scores:
|
||||
complexity: 8
|
||||
spec_adherence: 9
|
||||
on_success:
|
||||
- type: commit_pr
|
||||
params:
|
||||
117
workflows/write-tests.yaml
Normal file
117
workflows/write-tests.yaml
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,117 @@
|
||||
name: write-tests
|
||||
version: 1
|
||||
description: >
|
||||
Two-node spec-driven test writing workflow. First node writes tests from the spec
|
||||
(one test per requirement, edge cases, property tests where applicable). Second node
|
||||
reviews coverage — checking every numbered requirement has a corresponding test and
|
||||
flagging any gaps.
|
||||
|
||||
Output: test files committed to the agent-repo branch; coverage gap report in the
|
||||
review node's output artifact.
|
||||
|
||||
params:
|
||||
required:
|
||||
spec_file:
|
||||
type: string
|
||||
description: "Path to the spec file in the repo (e.g. spec/my-feature.md)"
|
||||
project_id:
|
||||
type: string
|
||||
description: "Target project identifier"
|
||||
repo_url:
|
||||
type: string
|
||||
description: "Git repo URL containing the spec"
|
||||
agent_repo_url:
|
||||
type: string
|
||||
description: "Agent repo URL for branch-per-task output persistence"
|
||||
optional:
|
||||
task_description:
|
||||
type: string
|
||||
default: ""
|
||||
description: "Additional context about what is being tested (supplements the spec)"
|
||||
test_output_dir:
|
||||
type: string
|
||||
default: "tests/"
|
||||
description: "Directory to write test files into (default: tests/)"
|
||||
test_framework:
|
||||
type: string
|
||||
default: "pytest"
|
||||
description: "Test framework to use (default: pytest)"
|
||||
writer_harness:
|
||||
type: string
|
||||
default: "test-writing-opus-repo/v1"
|
||||
description: "Harness for the test-writing node (default: test-writing-opus-repo/v1)"
|
||||
reviewer_harness:
|
||||
type: string
|
||||
default: "planning/v1"
|
||||
description: "Harness for the coverage review node (default: planning/v1)"
|
||||
|
||||
nodes:
|
||||
write_tests:
|
||||
name: "Write tests from spec"
|
||||
prompt: |
|
||||
You are writing a test suite from a spec file. Tests are the contract — they will
|
||||
be run against an agent's implementation. Write them now, before the implementation exists.
|
||||
|
||||
## Spec file
|
||||
Read the spec at `{{ spec_file }}` in the cloned repo at `/workspace/project/`.
|
||||
|
||||
{% if task_description %}
|
||||
## Additional context
|
||||
{{ task_description }}
|
||||
{% endif %}
|
||||
|
||||
## Instructions
|
||||
1. Read the spec carefully. Identify every numbered requirement (e.g. MY-1, MY-2...).
|
||||
2. For each requirement, write at least one test function named `test_<req_id>_<short_description>`.
|
||||
3. Cover edge cases explicitly — empty inputs, boundary values, error paths.
|
||||
4. Add property-based tests (Hypothesis) where the requirement involves ranges or invariants.
|
||||
5. Write tests to `{{ test_output_dir }}` — one file per logical group (mirrors spec sections).
|
||||
6. Use `{{ test_framework }}` conventions. Tests should fail immediately (no implementation exists).
|
||||
7. Do NOT write any implementation code. Only test files.
|
||||
|
||||
After writing all tests, write a coverage summary to `/workspace/project/output.md`:
|
||||
- List every requirement ID from the spec
|
||||
- For each: which test function(s) cover it
|
||||
- Note any requirements you could not write a test for (and why)
|
||||
harness: "{{ writer_harness }}"
|
||||
requirements:
|
||||
min_scores:
|
||||
spec_adherence: 9
|
||||
test_pass_rate: 8
|
||||
|
||||
review_coverage:
|
||||
name: "Review test coverage"
|
||||
depends_on: [write_tests]
|
||||
prompt: |
|
||||
You are reviewing the coverage of a freshly written test suite against its spec.
|
||||
|
||||
## Spec file
|
||||
Read the spec at `{{ spec_file }}` in the cloned repo at `/workspace/project/`.
|
||||
|
||||
## Test summary written by the previous agent
|
||||
<<ARTIFACT:write_tests:output>>
|
||||
|
||||
## Instructions
|
||||
1. Read the spec and extract every numbered requirement.
|
||||
2. Cross-reference each requirement against the test summary above.
|
||||
3. For each requirement, determine: fully covered / partially covered / not covered.
|
||||
4. Flag any test functions that appear to test behaviour NOT in the spec (over-specification).
|
||||
|
||||
Write your review to `/workspace/project/output.md` as:
|
||||
|
||||
```json
|
||||
{
|
||||
"covered": ["REQ-1", "REQ-2"],
|
||||
"partial": [{"id": "REQ-3", "reason": "happy path only, error case missing"}],
|
||||
"missing": ["REQ-4", "REQ-5"],
|
||||
"over_specified": ["test_something_not_in_spec"],
|
||||
"summary": "one paragraph"
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Then list specific, actionable improvements for any partial or missing coverage.
|
||||
harness: "{{ reviewer_harness }}"
|
||||
requirements:
|
||||
min_scores:
|
||||
complexity: 8
|
||||
spec_adherence: 9
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user