6c4bf449aa
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
2.8 KiB
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.mdif 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.