idle-draft: idle-subscription dispatcher for the writing pipeline

Elapsed-paced gates, bounded-parallel event-driven dispatch, filesystem-
derived stages with thin human-gate state, citation validation with
quarantine, credential parity check, prompt templates as data.
Per IDLE-DRAFT-PLAN.md in writing/oreillyconsulting.

Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01YQDoWNM7XPPii28khFWoMc

data/idle-draft/config.example.json

@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+{
+  "parallel": 2,
+  "providers": {
+    "anthropic": { "profile": "~/.claude-oreillyit-anthropic", "threshold_pct": 80,
+                    "five_hour_ceiling": 50, "min_idle": 5 },
+    "minimax":   { "profile": "~/.claude-oreillyit-minimax",   "threshold_pct": 80,
+                    "five_hour_ceiling": 50, "min_idle": 5 }
+  },
+  "work_types": {
+    "review":      { "providers": ["anthropic"] },
+    "draft":       { "providers": ["anthropic"] },
+    "research":    { "providers": ["anthropic", "minimax"] },
+    "topic_ideas": { "providers": ["anthropic", "minimax"] }
+  },
+  "dossiers": ["ai", "ai-technical", "devops-2020", "devops-2020-technical"],
+  "review_score_threshold": 11,
+  "max_unreviewed_research_per_dossier": 3,
+  "max_open_topic_proposals": 6,
+  "evidence_dirs": [
+    "~/dev/claude/octopus/goes",
+    "~/dev/claude/projects/agent-runtimes",
+    "~/dev/claude/projects/agent-runtimes-work-items"
+  ]
+}

data/idle-draft/prompts/draft.md

@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+You are producing the **published-track draft article** for one topic in an O'Reilly
+Consulting writing dossier. This is unattended, headless work — a human edits this
+draft before it moves further, but there is no human in the loop while you write it.
+Follow this brief exactly; do not invent structure.
+
+## Item
+
+- Dossier: `$dossier`
+- Topic: `$slug`
+- Topic brief: $overview_path
+- Commissioning brief — **this is the contract for the article; follow its required
+  structure exactly**: $agent_path
+- Research file — your evidence source, already validated: $research_path
+- Dossier commissioning guide: $dossier_agents_path
+- Project-root voice, style, and citation rules — read before writing a single line:
+  $agents_root_path
+- Voice reference (read this one in full; it is the canonical synthesis): $style_dir/goes-target-voice.md
+
+## What to produce
+
+Follow the commissioning brief's required structure exactly — it is the contract, not
+a suggestion. Do not add sections it doesn't name; do not omit sections it does.
+
+## Voice rules (non-negotiable)
+
+- **Sentence-case headings** everywhere: "The decision," not "The Decision."
+- **Consulting dossiers** (`ai`, `devops-2020`): open with a judgment the reader would
+  pay for, not a category they already know. **Do not name vendors in prose.** If a
+  source credits a specific vendor or product, say "the platform team" or "their
+  engineering organisation" instead — vendor names stay in the source register and the
+  commissioning brief, never in the published copy.
+- **Technical dossiers** (`ai-technical`, `devops-2020-technical`): open with the
+  specific toil the reader lives with, not the category a vendor markets. Naming a
+  specific tool, script, or system by its actual identifier is fine here — this is
+  implementation detail, not vendor marketing.
+- **Cite the file, not the concept**, for any code or spec reference (path + line
+  range). **Make a claim, cite the case, name the source**, for any research finding.
+  Use the dossier's correct status-label family (see `$agents_root_path`) on every
+  cited claim.
+- **Distinguish research from implementation.** Do not conflate "the research finds X"
+  with "the implementation does Y." The research is the question; the implementation
+  is one possible answer; state the connection explicitly.
+- No hedge words where the evidence supports a direct claim. No marketing language. No
+  AI tells (see the burn list in `$style_dir/tone-and-voice.md` if you are unsure what
+  that means).
+
+## Output
+
+Write the complete Markdown article to exactly this path, and nothing else:
+
+    $output_path
+
+The dispatcher validates this file (non-empty, starts with a top-level heading) and
+promotes it to its canonical location itself. A human edits this draft next — write it
+as if a careful editor, not a lenient one, will read it in the next hour.

data/idle-draft/prompts/research.md

@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
+You are producing the **research file** for one topic in an O'Reilly Consulting
+writing dossier. This is unattended, headless work — there is no human in the loop
+until a reviewer samples your output later. Follow this brief exactly.
+
+## Item
+
+- Dossier: `$dossier`
+- Topic: `$slug`
+- Topic brief (read first, in full): $overview_path
+- Commissioning brief (read second, in full): $agent_path
+- Dossier commissioning guide (dossier-specific rules): $dossier_agents_path
+- Project-root voice and citation rules (read before writing a single line): $agents_root_path
+- Source register (existing sources for this dossier — read before searching for new
+  ones; do not duplicate a source it already lists): $source_register_path
+
+Evidence you may cite must live under one of these directories (you have read access
+via `--add-dir`; do not invent paths outside them):
+
+$evidence_dirs
+
+## What to produce
+
+Write a Markdown research file with two kinds of content, matching what the topic
+brief's evidence section and the commissioning brief already point at, extended with
+anything new and relevant you find under the evidence directories above:
+
+1. **Objective evidence** — concrete examples, code references (file path + line range,
+   not just "the script does X"), measurables, named findings. Every claim is sourced.
+2. **Subjective stories** — case-study-like narratives that make the evidence concrete
+   for a reader (a scene, a named organisation's experience, a practitioner's account)
+   — still sourced, but framed as narrative rather than a bare statistic.
+
+## Citation rules (non-negotiable — read `$agents_root_path` for the full statement)
+
+- **Cite the file, not the concept.** Any code or spec reference must name the file
+  path and the line range: `path/to/file.py:120-145`, not "the script does X."
+- **Cite the requirement ID where one exists** (e.g. `H-*`, `AU-*`, `WT-*`, `KX-*`,
+  `BRK-*`, `WF-*` prefixes in the agent-runtimes spec) — quote the ID, not a prose
+  paraphrase.
+- **Quote metric markers verbatim** where GOES research uses them (`{p.3}`, `{s.4}`,
+  `{t.00:14:32}`) — do not renumber or invent markers.
+- Use the dossier's status-label family and apply it correctly:
+  - `ai` / `ai-technical` dossiers use **implementation maturity**: "Implemented and
+    running in production" / "Designed and specified, implementation in progress" /
+    "Spec-only / future." A claim about an `implemented` feature may report a deployed
+    behaviour or measured metric; a `spec-only` claim may not.
+  - `devops-2020` / `devops-2020-technical` dossiers use **evidence quality**: "Named
+    organisation, self-reported" / "Research-survey finding" / "GOES synthesis / bet" /
+    "Vendor data, treat with caution." Label every cited source with the correct one.
+- Every source you cite gets an explicit status label. Do not present an unlabelled
+  claim as settled fact.
+
+## Required structure
+
+```markdown
+# Research: <topic title, sentence case>
+
+## Objective evidence
+
+<bulleted or short-paragraph entries, each with file/line or source citation and
+status label>
+
+## Subjective stories
+
+<narrative entries, each still sourced and status-labelled>
+
+## Register delta
+
+<a bulleted list of every source used in this file that `$source_register_path` does
+NOT already list — path, one-line description, proposed status label. If every source
+you used is already in the register, write "None — all sources already registered."
+This section is the only place new sources are proposed; you do not edit the register
+file itself.>
+```
+
+All headings are **sentence case** ("Objective evidence," not "Objective Evidence").
+
+## Output
+
+Write the complete Markdown file to exactly this path, and nothing else — do not touch
+any other file in the repository, do not edit the source register, do not create the
+canonical `$slug.research.md` file yourself:
+
+    $output_path
+
+The dispatcher validates this file (non-empty, starts with a top-level heading, every
+absolute `/home/...` path you cite resolves on disk) and promotes it to its canonical
+location itself. If any cited absolute path does not exist, your output will be
+rejected — verify paths before citing them, don't guess.

data/idle-draft/prompts/review-suggest.md

@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+You are producing the **review file** for one human-edited draft in an O'Reilly
+Consulting writing dossier. The draft has already been scored per-paragraph on the
+5-dimension `/15` rubric (Evidence, Judgment, Voice, Rhythm, Register — see
+`score-paragraphs`); your job is the **second pass**: concrete, actionable improvement
+suggestions for every paragraph that scored below the threshold.
+
+## Item
+
+- Dossier: `$dossier`
+- Topic: `$slug`
+- Human-edited draft (already scored, score blocks inline): $draft_path
+- Grading template — apply the same rubric and voice bar when suggesting fixes:
+  $review_prompt_path
+- Voice reference: $style_dir/goes-target-voice.md
+- Score threshold on the `/15` scale: **$review_score_threshold** — any paragraph
+  scoring below this needs a suggestion; paragraphs at or above it need none.
+
+## What to produce
+
+For every paragraph in the draft whose inline score block shows a total below
+`$review_score_threshold`:
+
+- Quote the paragraph's opening few words so a human can locate it.
+- Name which of the five dimensions is weakest and why, in one sentence.
+- Give a **concrete rewrite direction** — not "improve the evidence," but what
+  specific evidence, source, or file/line citation would raise the score, or what
+  specific sentence-level change (cut a hedge word, vary sentence length, cut a
+  vendor name, cite the file instead of the concept) would fix it.
+
+Do not rewrite the paragraph yourself — suggest, don't replace. The human author makes
+the edit.
+
+## Required structure
+
+```markdown
+# Review: <topic title, sentence case>
+
+## Summary
+
+<one paragraph: how many paragraphs scored below threshold, out of how many total,
+and the single most common weak dimension>
+
+## Suggestions
+
+### Paragraph opening: "<first few words...>"
+
+- Score: <total>/15 (weakest dimension: <name>)
+- Suggestion: <concrete, specific>
+
+<repeat per below-threshold paragraph, in document order>
+```
+
+All headings are **sentence case**.
+
+## Output
+
+Write the complete Markdown file to exactly this path, and nothing else:
+
+    $output_path
+
+The dispatcher validates this file (non-empty, starts with a top-level heading) and
+promotes it to its canonical location itself.

data/idle-draft/prompts/topic-ideas.md

@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+You are proposing **new candidate topics** for one dossier in the O'Reilly Consulting
+writing pipeline. This runs only when no other work is currently eligible — the
+dossier's existing topics are all blocked on a human step or already have enough work
+in flight. Do not invent structure; follow this brief.
+
+## Dossier
+
+- Dossier: `$dossier`
+- Dossier commissioning guide: $dossier_agents_path
+- Project-root voice and citation rules: $agents_root_path
+- Voice reference: $style_dir/goes-target-voice.md
+
+Evidence you may cite must live under one of these directories (you have read access
+via `--add-dir`):
+
+$evidence_dirs
+
+## Do not duplicate an existing topic
+
+These titles already exist as numbered topic briefs or open proposals in this dossier.
+Do **not** propose anything that duplicates or trivially rephrases one of these:
+
+$existing_titles
+
+## What to produce
+
+Propose **up to $max_new** new candidate topics for this dossier, each grounded in
+something you actually found under the evidence directories above — not a generic
+industry-trend guess. For each candidate:
+
+- A working title (sentence case, matching the dossier's existing topic-title style).
+- A one-paragraph pitch: the decision or toil the topic would address, matching the
+  audience of this dossier (CTO/VP for consulting dossiers, implementing engineers for
+  technical dossiers — see `$dossier_agents_path` for which this is).
+- 2–4 evidence pointers: file paths under the evidence directories, with a one-line
+  note on what each contains. Use the dossier's correct status-label family (see
+  `$agents_root_path`) on each.
+
+You are proposing, not commissioning: **never create a numbered `NN-slug` file.** A
+human promotes a proposal to a numbered brief later.
+
+## Required structure (append this, do not replace the file)
+
+```markdown
+## <Working title, sentence case>
+
+**Pitch:** <one paragraph>
+
+**Evidence:**
+
+- <path> — <one-line note, status label>
+- <path> — <one-line note, status label>
+```
+
+One `##` block per proposed topic. All headings sentence case. No vendor names in
+prose for consulting dossiers (`ai`, `devops-2020`) — vendor names may stay in the
+evidence pointers' one-line notes only.
+
+## Output
+
+Write **only the new `##` blocks** (not the whole file — this content will be appended
+to the dossier's existing `TOPIC-PROPOSALS.md`) to exactly this path:
+
+    $output_path
+
+The dispatcher validates this file (non-empty, starts with a top-level `##` heading)
+and appends it to the canonical proposals file itself.