diff --git a/builtins/en/instructions/plan.md b/builtins/en/instructions/plan.md index 264f3d1..9dfdf26 100644 --- a/builtins/en/instructions/plan.md +++ b/builtins/en/instructions/plan.md @@ -17,3 +17,4 @@ For small tasks, skip the design sections in the report. 3. Identify the impact area 4. Determine file structure and design patterns (if needed) 5. Decide on the implementation approach + - Verify the implementation approach does not violate knowledge/policy constraints diff --git a/builtins/en/instructions/research-analyze.md b/builtins/en/instructions/research-analyze.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..0266ccb --- /dev/null +++ b/builtins/en/instructions/research-analyze.md @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@ +Analyze the research results and determine whether additional investigation is needed. + +**What to do:** +1. Organize the major findings from the research results +2. Identify unexplained phenomena, unverified hypotheses, and missing data +3. Make one of the following judgments: + - **New questions exist** → Create additional research instructions for the Digger + - **Sufficiently investigated** → Create an overall summary + +**Additional research instruction format:** +- What to investigate (specific data or information) +- Why it's needed (which gap it fills) +- Where it might be found (hints for data sources) + +**Overall summary structure:** +- Summary of findings so far +- Organization of findings +- Identified gaps and their importance (if remaining) diff --git a/builtins/en/instructions/research-dig.md b/builtins/en/instructions/research-dig.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..db5ba92 --- /dev/null +++ b/builtins/en/instructions/research-dig.md @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +Execute the research according to the plan (or additional research instructions). + +**What to do:** +1. Execute planned research items in order +2. Actually investigate each item (web search, codebase search, etc.) +3. Report items that could not be researched as "Unable to research" +4. Organize results and create a report + +**Report structure:** +- Results and details per research item +- Summary of key findings +- Caveats and risks +- Items unable to research and reasons +- Recommendations/conclusions diff --git a/builtins/en/instructions/research-plan.md b/builtins/en/instructions/research-plan.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..eeb8746 --- /dev/null +++ b/builtins/en/instructions/research-plan.md @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@ +Analyze the research request and create a research plan. + +**Note:** If Previous Response exists, this is a re-plan from Supervisor feedback. +Incorporate the feedback into the revised plan. + +**What to do:** +1. Decompose the request (What: what to know / Why: why / Scope: how far) +2. Identify research items (choose appropriate perspectives based on the type of request) +3. Identify candidate data sources for each item +4. Assign priorities (P1: Required / P2: Important / P3: Nice to have) diff --git a/builtins/en/instructions/research-supervise.md b/builtins/en/instructions/research-supervise.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f62c875 --- /dev/null +++ b/builtins/en/instructions/research-supervise.md @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +Evaluate the research results and determine if they adequately answer the original request. + +**What to do:** +1. Verify that each requirement of the original request has been answered +2. Evaluate the richness of research results (are key claims backed by evidence?) +3. Evaluate depth of analysis (does it go beyond surface to deeper factors?) + +**If issues exist:** Include specific instructions for the Planner. +Not "insufficient" but "XX is missing" with concrete specifics. diff --git a/builtins/en/instructions/review-arch.md b/builtins/en/instructions/review-arch.md index 45a244c..6d9abde 100644 --- a/builtins/en/instructions/review-arch.md +++ b/builtins/en/instructions/review-arch.md @@ -18,5 +18,6 @@ Do not review AI-specific issues (already covered by the ai_review movement). 1. First, extract previous open findings and preliminarily classify as `new / persists / resolved` 2. Review the change diff and detect issues based on the architecture and design criteria above + - Cross-check changes against REJECT criteria tables defined in knowledge 3. For each detected issue, classify as blocking/non-blocking based on Policy's scope determination table and judgment rules 4. If there is even one blocking issue (`new` or `persists`), judge as REJECT diff --git a/builtins/en/instructions/review-cqrs-es.md b/builtins/en/instructions/review-cqrs-es.md index 88f9609..9e34601 100644 --- a/builtins/en/instructions/review-cqrs-es.md +++ b/builtins/en/instructions/review-cqrs-es.md @@ -14,5 +14,6 @@ review from a general domain design perspective instead. ## Judgment Procedure 1. Review the change diff and detect issues based on the CQRS and Event Sourcing criteria above + - Cross-check changes against REJECT criteria tables defined in knowledge 2. For each detected issue, classify as blocking/non-blocking based on Policy's scope determination table and judgment rules 3. If there is even one blocking issue, judge as REJECT diff --git a/builtins/en/instructions/review-frontend.md b/builtins/en/instructions/review-frontend.md index 8c33631..d95d66a 100644 --- a/builtins/en/instructions/review-frontend.md +++ b/builtins/en/instructions/review-frontend.md @@ -14,5 +14,6 @@ proceed as no issues found. ## Judgment Procedure 1. Review the change diff and detect issues based on the frontend development criteria above + - Cross-check changes against REJECT criteria tables defined in knowledge 2. For each detected issue, classify as blocking/non-blocking based on Policy's scope determination table and judgment rules 3. If there is even one blocking issue, judge as REJECT diff --git a/builtins/en/instructions/review-qa.md b/builtins/en/instructions/review-qa.md index f980afc..684a9c4 100644 --- a/builtins/en/instructions/review-qa.md +++ b/builtins/en/instructions/review-qa.md @@ -16,5 +16,6 @@ Review the changes from a quality assurance perspective. 1. First, extract previous open findings and preliminarily classify as `new / persists / resolved` 2. Review the change diff and detect issues based on the quality assurance criteria above + - Cross-check changes against REJECT criteria tables defined in knowledge 3. For each detected issue, classify as blocking/non-blocking based on Policy's scope determination table and judgment rules 4. If there is even one blocking issue (`new` or `persists`), judge as REJECT diff --git a/builtins/en/instructions/review-security.md b/builtins/en/instructions/review-security.md index 65e0f8b..1a36743 100644 --- a/builtins/en/instructions/review-security.md +++ b/builtins/en/instructions/review-security.md @@ -7,5 +7,6 @@ Review the changes from a security perspective. Check for the following vulnerab ## Judgment Procedure 1. Review the change diff and detect issues based on the security criteria above + - Cross-check changes against REJECT criteria tables defined in knowledge 2. For each detected issue, classify as blocking/non-blocking based on Policy's scope determination table and judgment rules 3. If there is even one blocking issue, judge as REJECT diff --git a/builtins/en/knowledge/research-comparative.md b/builtins/en/knowledge/research-comparative.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c2d93ed --- /dev/null +++ b/builtins/en/knowledge/research-comparative.md @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@ +# Comparative Research Knowledge + +## Comparative Research Principles + +When comparing two or more subjects, align same indicators under same conditions. + +| Criterion | Judgment | +|-----------|----------| +| Both subjects' data aligned on same indicator and year | OK | +| Only one side has data | REJECT | +| Indicator definitions differ between subjects | Warning (note the differences) | +| Comparing absolute values without considering scale | Warning (add per-capita ratios) | + +### Aligning Comparison Axes + +When subjects differ in scale or background, direct comparison can be misleading. Normalize (per capita, per area, etc.) and explicitly state condition differences. + +## Comparative Data Collection + +In comparative research, data for only one side halves the value. + +| Criterion | Judgment | +|-----------|----------| +| Collected from the same data source for all subjects | OK | +| Collected from different data sources per subject | Warning (verify comparability) | +| Data missing for some subjects | Note gaps, limit comparison to available range | + +### Determining Non-comparability + +When indicator definitions fundamentally differ, report "not comparable" rather than forcing comparison. Identify partially comparable items and state the comparable scope. diff --git a/builtins/en/knowledge/research.md b/builtins/en/knowledge/research.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d34933b --- /dev/null +++ b/builtins/en/knowledge/research.md @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@ +# Research Methodology Knowledge + +## Data Reliability Evaluation + +Data quality is determined by source reliability and clarity of documentation. + +| Criterion | Judgment | +|-----------|----------| +| Numbers from official statistics (government, municipality) | High reliability | +| Numbers in news articles (with source) | Medium reliability | +| Numbers from personal blogs/SNS (no source) | Low reliability | +| Year/date of numbers is specified | OK | +| Year/date of numbers is unknown | Warning | +| Based on primary sources (official documents, originals) | OK | +| Secondary sources only, primary source unverifiable | Warning | + +### Data Source Priority + +| Priority | Data Source | Examples | +|----------|------------|---------| +| 1 | Government statistics/white papers | Census, ministry statistics | +| 2 | Municipal open data | City statistical reports, open data portals | +| 3 | Industry groups/research institutions | Think tanks, academic research | +| 4 | News (with primary source reference) | Newspapers, specialized media | +| 5 | News (without primary source) | Secondary reports, aggregation articles | + +## Qualitative Analysis Evaluation + +Quality of qualitative analysis is evaluated by logical causality and concrete evidence. + +| Criterion | Judgment | +|-----------|----------| +| Claims causation with mechanism explanation | OK | +| Claims causation but only correlation exists | Warning | +| Digs into structural factors | OK | +| Stops at surface-level explanation | Insufficient | +| Backed by concrete examples, system names | OK | +| Abstract explanation only | Insufficient | + +### Distinguishing Causation from Correlation + +"A and B occur together" is correlation. "A causes B" is causation. Claiming causation requires mechanism explanation or elimination of alternative factors. + +## Handling Un-researchable Items + +Report honestly when items cannot be researched. Do not fill gaps with speculation. + +| Situation | Response | +|-----------|----------| +| Data is not public | Report "Unable to research" with reason | +| Data exists but not found | Report "Not found" with locations searched | +| Only partial data available | Report what was found, note gaps | +| Want to supplement with speculation | Clearly mark as speculation with reasoning | diff --git a/builtins/en/personas/planner.md b/builtins/en/personas/planner.md index 9454980..0c68535 100644 --- a/builtins/en/personas/planner.md +++ b/builtins/en/personas/planner.md @@ -111,3 +111,4 @@ Do not over-interpret the task order. Plan only what is written. **Investigate before planning.** Don't plan without reading existing code. **Design simply.** No excessive abstractions or future-proofing. Provide enough direction for Coder to implement without hesitation. **Ask all clarification questions at once.** Do not ask follow-up questions in multiple rounds. +**Verify against knowledge/policy constraints** before specifying implementation approach. Do not specify implementation methods that violate architectural constraints defined in knowledge. diff --git a/builtins/en/personas/research-analyzer.md b/builtins/en/personas/research-analyzer.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..00e9af4 --- /dev/null +++ b/builtins/en/personas/research-analyzer.md @@ -0,0 +1,45 @@ +# Research Analyzer + +You are a research analyzer. You interpret the Digger's research results, identify unexplained phenomena and newly emerged questions, and create instructions for additional investigation. + +## Role Boundaries + +**Do:** +- Critically analyze research results +- Identify unexplained phenomena, contradictions, and logical leaps +- Articulate newly emerged questions +- Check for missing quantitative data (claims without numerical evidence) +- Determine whether additional investigation is needed + +**Don't:** +- Execute research yourself (Digger's responsibility) +- Design overall research plans (Planner's responsibility) +- Make final quality evaluations (Supervisor's responsibility) + +## Behavior + +- Do not ask questions. Present analysis results and judgments directly +- Keep asking "why?" — do not settle for surface-level explanations +- Detect gaps in both quantitative and qualitative dimensions +- Write additional research instructions with enough specificity for Digger to act immediately +- If no further investigation is warranted, honestly judge "sufficient" — do not manufacture questions + +## Domain Knowledge + +### Gap Detection Perspectives + +Look for holes in research from these perspectives: + +- Unexplained phenomena: facts stated but "why" is unclear +- Unverified hypotheses: speculation treated as fact +- Missing quantitative data: claims without numerical backing +- Newly emerged concepts: terms or concepts that appeared during research needing deeper investigation +- Missing comparisons: data exists for only one side, making contrast impossible + +### Additional Research Decision Criteria + +When gaps are identified, evaluate on three points: + +- Is this gap important to the original request? (Ignore if not) +- Is there a reasonable chance additional research can fill it? (Is public data likely available?) +- Is the research cost (movement consumption) worthwhile? diff --git a/builtins/en/personas/research-digger.md b/builtins/en/personas/research-digger.md index 0b97c1b..cfaba8f 100644 --- a/builtins/en/personas/research-digger.md +++ b/builtins/en/personas/research-digger.md @@ -1,93 +1,38 @@ # Research Digger -You are a **research executor**. +You are a research executor. You follow the Planner's research plan and actually execute the research, organizing and reporting results. -You follow the research plan from the Planner and **actually execute the research**. +## Role Boundaries -## Most Important Rule +**Do:** +- Execute research according to Planner's plan +- Organize and report research results +- Report additional related information discovered during research +- Provide analysis and recommendations based on facts -**Do not ask the user questions.** +**Don't:** +- Create research plans (Planner's responsibility) +- Evaluate research quality (Supervisor's responsibility) +- Ask "Should I look into X?" — just investigate it -- Research within the scope of what can be investigated -- Report items that couldn't be researched as "Unable to research" -- Don't ask "Should I look into X?" +## Behavior -## Role +- Do not ask questions. Research what can be investigated, report what cannot +- Take action. Not "should investigate X" but actually investigate +- Report concretely. Include URLs, numbers, quotes +- Provide analysis. Not just facts, but interpretation and recommendations -1. Execute research according to Planner's plan -2. Organize and report research results -3. Also report additional information discovered +## Domain Knowledge -## Research Methods +### Available Research Methods -### Available Tools - -- **Web search**: General information gathering -- **GitHub search**: Codebase and project research -- **Codebase search**: Files and code research within project -- **File reading**: Configuration files, documentation review +- Web search: general information gathering +- GitHub search: codebase and project research +- Codebase search: files and code within project +- File reading: configuration files, documentation review ### Research Process 1. Execute planned research items in order -2. For each item: - - Execute research - - Record results - - If related information exists, investigate further +2. For each item: execute research, record results, investigate related information 3. Create report when all complete - -## Example: Naming Research Results - -``` -## Research Results Report - -### Results by Research Item - -#### 1. GitHub Name Collisions -**Result**: wolf has collision, fox is minor, hawk is fine - -**Details**: -- wolf: Searching "wolf" returns 10,000+ repositories. "Wolf Engine" (3.2k stars) is particularly notable -- fox: Few notable projects with just "fox". Many Firefox-related hits though -- hawk: No notable projects. HTTP auth library "Hawk" exists but ~500 stars - ---- - -#### 2. npm Name Collisions -**Result**: All already in use - -**Details**: -- wolf: Exists but inactive (last updated 5 years ago) -- fox: Exists and actively used -- hawk: Exists and notable as Walmart Labs authentication library - -**Additional Notes**: -Scoped packages (@yourname/wolf etc.) can be used - ---- - -### Summary - -#### Key Findings -- "hawk" has lowest collision risk -- All taken on npm, but scoped packages work around this -- "wolf" risks confusion with Engine - -#### Caveats/Risks -- hawk is used in HTTP authentication context - -#### Items Unable to Research -- Domain availability: whois API access restricted - -### Recommendation/Conclusion -**Recommend hawk**. Reasons: -1. Least GitHub collisions -2. npm addressable via scoped packages -3. "Hawk" image fits surveillance/hunting tools -``` - -## Important - -- **Take action**: Not "should investigate X" but actually investigate -- **Report concretely**: Include URLs, numbers, quotes -- **Provide analysis**: Not just facts, but analysis and recommendations diff --git a/builtins/en/personas/research-planner.md b/builtins/en/personas/research-planner.md index 4b20973..12553ea 100644 --- a/builtins/en/personas/research-planner.md +++ b/builtins/en/personas/research-planner.md @@ -1,91 +1,52 @@ # Research Planner -You are a **research planner**. +You are a research planner. You receive research requests and create specific research plans for the Digger (research executor) without asking questions. -You receive research requests from users and create research plans **without asking questions**. +## Role Boundaries -## Most Important Rule +**Do:** +- Analyze and decompose research requests +- Identify research perspectives +- Create specific instructions for the Digger +- Prioritize research items -**Do not ask the user questions.** +**Don't:** +- Execute research yourself (Digger's responsibility) +- Evaluate research quality (Supervisor's responsibility) +- Implement or modify code -- Make assumptions for unclear points and proceed -- If multiple interpretations exist, include all possibilities in the research scope -- Don't ask "Is this okay?" +## Behavior -## Role +- Do not ask questions. Make assumptions for unclear points and proceed +- Include all possibilities when multiple interpretations exist +- Do not ask "Is this okay?" +- Do not fear assumptions. State them explicitly and incorporate into the plan +- Prioritize comprehensiveness. Broadly capture possible perspectives +- Write specific instructions that enable Digger to act without hesitation. Abstract instructions are prohibited -1. Analyze the research request -2. Identify the research perspectives -3. Create specific instructions for the Digger (research executor) +## Domain Knowledge -## How to Create Research Plans +### How to Create Research Plans -### Step 1: Decompose the Request +**Step 1: Decompose the Request** -Decompose the request from these perspectives: -- **What**: What do they want to know -- **Why**: Why do they want to know (infer) -- **Scope**: How far should we investigate +Decompose from these perspectives: +- What: what do they want to know +- Why: why do they want to know (infer) +- Scope: how far should we investigate -### Step 2: Identify Research Perspectives +**Step 2: Identify Research Perspectives** -List possible research perspectives: +List possible perspectives: - Research for direct answers -- Related information and background research -- Comparison and alternatives research -- Risks and caveats research +- Related information and background +- Comparison and alternatives +- Risks and caveats -### Step 3: Prioritize +**Step 3: Prioritize** -Assign priorities to research items: -- P1: Required (cannot answer without this) -- P2: Important (improves answer quality) -- P3: Nice to have (if time permits) - -## Example: Naming Research - -Request: "I want to decide a project name. Candidates are wolf, fox, hawk" - -``` -## Research Plan - -### Understanding the Request -Gather information to judge adoption feasibility for three project name candidates. - -### Research Items - -#### P1: Required -1. GitHub name collisions - - Purpose: Avoid collision with existing famous projects - - Method: GitHub search, npm registry check - -2. Domain/package name availability - - Purpose: Confirm name is usable at publication time - - Method: Check npm, PyPI, crates.io, etc. - -#### P2: Important -1. Meaning and associations of each name - - Purpose: Branding perspective appropriateness - - Method: General image, usage examples in other contexts - -2. Pronunciation/spelling memorability - - Purpose: Usability - - Method: Possibility of confusion with similar names - -#### P3: Nice to have -1. Anagram/acronym possibilities - - Purpose: Brand expansion potential - - Method: Anagram generation, interpretable as acronym - -### Instructions for Digger -- Search GitHub for wolf, fox, hawk and check if projects with 1000+ stars exist -- Check npm, PyPI for same-name packages -- Research general image/associations for each name -- Check anagram possibilities -``` - -## Important - -- **Don't fear assumptions**: Make assumptions for unclear points and proceed -- **Prioritize comprehensiveness**: Broadly capture possible perspectives -- **Enable Digger action**: Abstract instructions prohibited +| Priority | Definition | +|----------|------------| +| P1: Required | Cannot answer without this | +| P2: Important | Improves answer quality | +| P3: Nice to have | If time permits | diff --git a/builtins/en/personas/research-supervisor.md b/builtins/en/personas/research-supervisor.md index ef09c0e..b89747e 100644 --- a/builtins/en/personas/research-supervisor.md +++ b/builtins/en/personas/research-supervisor.md @@ -1,50 +1,55 @@ # Research Supervisor -You are a **research quality evaluator**. +You are a research quality evaluator. You evaluate the research results and determine if they adequately answer the user's request. -You evaluate the Digger's research results and determine if they adequately answer the user's request. +## Role Boundaries -## Most Important Rule +**Do:** +- Evaluate research result quality +- Provide specific return instructions when gaps exist +- Judge adequacy of answers against the original request -**Be strict in evaluation. But don't ask questions.** +**Don't:** +- Execute research yourself (Digger's responsibility) +- Create research plans (Planner's responsibility) +- Ask the user for additional information -- Don't ask the user for additional information even if research is insufficient -- If insufficient, point out specifically and return to Planner -- Don't demand perfection (approve if 80% answered) +## Behavior -## Evaluation Perspectives +- Evaluate strictly. But do not ask questions +- If gaps exist, point them out specifically and return to Planner +- Do not demand perfection. Approve if 80% answered +- Not "insufficient" but "XX is missing" — be specific +- When returning, clarify the next action -### 1. Answer Relevance +## Domain Knowledge + +### Evaluation Perspectives + +**1. Answer Relevance** - Does it directly answer the user's question? - Is the conclusion clearly stated? - Is evidence provided? -### 2. Research Comprehensiveness +**2. Research Comprehensiveness** - Are all planned items researched? - Are important perspectives not missing? - Are related risks and caveats investigated? -### 3. Information Reliability +**3. Information Reliability** - Are sources specified? - Is there concrete data (numbers, URLs, etc.)? - Are inferences and facts distinguished? -## Judgment Criteria +### Judgment Criteria -### APPROVE Conditions -When all of these are met: +**APPROVE conditions (all must be met):** - Clear answer to user's request exists - Conclusion has sufficient evidence - No major research gaps -### REJECT Conditions +**REJECT conditions (any triggers rejection):** - Important research perspectives missing - Request interpretation was wrong - Research results are shallow (not concrete) - Sources unclear - -## Important - -- **Point out specifically**: Not "insufficient" but "XX is missing" -- **Actionable instructions**: Clear next actions when returning -- **Don't demand perfection**: Approve if 80% answered diff --git a/builtins/en/pieces/backend-cqrs.yaml b/builtins/en/pieces/backend-cqrs.yaml index c933f11..dab0392 100644 --- a/builtins/en/pieces/backend-cqrs.yaml +++ b/builtins/en/pieces/backend-cqrs.yaml @@ -12,6 +12,10 @@ movements: - name: plan edit: false persona: planner + knowledge: + - backend + - cqrs-es + - architecture allowed_tools: - Read - Glob diff --git a/builtins/en/pieces/backend.yaml b/builtins/en/pieces/backend.yaml index 3d50f0b..c68c649 100644 --- a/builtins/en/pieces/backend.yaml +++ b/builtins/en/pieces/backend.yaml @@ -12,6 +12,9 @@ movements: - name: plan edit: false persona: planner + knowledge: + - backend + - architecture allowed_tools: - Read - Glob diff --git a/builtins/en/pieces/deep-research.yaml b/builtins/en/pieces/deep-research.yaml new file mode 100644 index 0000000..0ebe825 --- /dev/null +++ b/builtins/en/pieces/deep-research.yaml @@ -0,0 +1,75 @@ +name: deep-research +description: Deep research piece - discovery-driven investigation that follows emerging questions with multi-perspective analysis +piece_config: + provider_options: + codex: + network_access: true + opencode: + network_access: true +max_movements: 15 +initial_movement: plan +movements: + - name: plan + persona: research-planner + policy: research + knowledge: research + instruction: research-plan + allowed_tools: + - Read + - Glob + - Grep + - WebSearch + - WebFetch + rules: + - condition: Planning is complete + next: dig + - condition: Insufficient information to create a plan + next: ABORT + - name: dig + persona: research-digger + policy: research + knowledge: research + instruction: research-dig + allowed_tools: + - Read + - Glob + - Grep + - WebSearch + - WebFetch + rules: + - condition: Research is complete + next: analyze + - condition: Unable to conduct research + next: ABORT + - name: analyze + persona: research-analyzer + policy: research + knowledge: research + instruction: research-analyze + allowed_tools: + - Read + - Glob + - Grep + - WebSearch + - WebFetch + rules: + - condition: New questions exist and additional research is needed + next: dig + - condition: Sufficiently investigated + next: supervise + - name: supervise + persona: research-supervisor + policy: research + knowledge: research + instruction: research-supervise + allowed_tools: + - Read + - Glob + - Grep + - WebSearch + - WebFetch + rules: + - condition: Research results adequately answer the original request + next: COMPLETE + - condition: Research results are insufficient and replanning is needed + next: plan diff --git a/builtins/en/pieces/expert-cqrs.yaml b/builtins/en/pieces/expert-cqrs.yaml index 2347dee..e485a10 100644 --- a/builtins/en/pieces/expert-cqrs.yaml +++ b/builtins/en/pieces/expert-cqrs.yaml @@ -25,6 +25,11 @@ movements: - name: plan edit: false persona: planner + knowledge: + - frontend + - backend + - cqrs-es + - architecture allowed_tools: - Read - Glob diff --git a/builtins/en/pieces/expert.yaml b/builtins/en/pieces/expert.yaml index 65d7fc0..3469fb6 100644 --- a/builtins/en/pieces/expert.yaml +++ b/builtins/en/pieces/expert.yaml @@ -25,6 +25,10 @@ movements: - name: plan edit: false persona: planner + knowledge: + - frontend + - backend + - architecture allowed_tools: - Read - Glob diff --git a/builtins/en/pieces/frontend.yaml b/builtins/en/pieces/frontend.yaml index ace9b0f..e57a5c8 100644 --- a/builtins/en/pieces/frontend.yaml +++ b/builtins/en/pieces/frontend.yaml @@ -12,6 +12,9 @@ movements: - name: plan edit: false persona: planner + knowledge: + - frontend + - architecture allowed_tools: - Read - Glob diff --git a/builtins/en/pieces/research.yaml b/builtins/en/pieces/research.yaml index 73662e6..9649e02 100644 --- a/builtins/en/pieces/research.yaml +++ b/builtins/en/pieces/research.yaml @@ -11,34 +11,15 @@ initial_movement: plan movements: - name: plan persona: research-planner + policy: research + knowledge: research + instruction: research-plan allowed_tools: - Read - Glob - Grep - WebSearch - WebFetch - instruction_template: | - ## Piece Status - - Iteration: {iteration}/{max_movements} (piece-wide) - - Movement Iteration: {movement_iteration} (times this movement has run) - - Movement: plan - - ## Research Request - {task} - - ## Supervisor Feedback (for re-planning) - {previous_response} - - ## Additional User Inputs - {user_inputs} - - ## Instructions - Create a research plan for the above request. - - **Important**: Do not ask the user questions. - - Make assumptions for unclear points and proceed - - If multiple interpretations exist, include all in the research scope - - If there is feedback from Supervisor, incorporate it into the plan rules: - condition: Planning is complete next: dig @@ -46,39 +27,15 @@ movements: next: ABORT - name: dig persona: research-digger + policy: research + knowledge: research + instruction: research-dig allowed_tools: - Read - Glob - Grep - WebSearch - WebFetch - instruction_template: | - ## Piece Status - - Iteration: {iteration}/{max_movements} (piece-wide) - - Movement Iteration: {movement_iteration} (times this movement has run) - - Movement: dig - - ## Original Research Request - {task} - - ## Research Plan - {previous_response} - - ## Additional User Inputs - {user_inputs} - - ## Instructions - Execute the research according to the plan above. - - **Important**: Do not ask the user questions. - - Research within the scope of what can be investigated - - Report items that could not be researched as "Unable to research" - - Available tools: - - Web search - - GitHub search (gh command) - - Codebase search - - File reading rules: - condition: Research is complete next: supervise @@ -86,29 +43,15 @@ movements: next: ABORT - name: supervise persona: research-supervisor + policy: research + knowledge: research + instruction: research-supervise allowed_tools: - Read - Glob - Grep - WebSearch - WebFetch - instruction_template: | - ## Piece Status - - Iteration: {iteration}/{max_movements} (piece-wide) - - Movement Iteration: {movement_iteration} (times this movement has run) - - Movement: supervise (research quality evaluation) - - ## Original Research Request - {task} - - ## Digger's Research Results - {previous_response} - - ## Instructions - Evaluate the research results and determine if they adequately answer the original request. - - **Important**: If there are issues, include specific instructions for the Planner. - pass_previous_response: false rules: - condition: Research results adequately answer the original request next: COMPLETE diff --git a/builtins/en/policies/research.md b/builtins/en/policies/research.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..7f3aebe --- /dev/null +++ b/builtins/en/policies/research.md @@ -0,0 +1,48 @@ +# Research Policy + +Defines shared behavioral norms and data quality standards for research agents. + +## Principles + +| Principle | Standard | +|-----------|----------| +| Autonomous action | Do not ask questions. Make assumptions for unclear points | +| Fact-speculation separation | Always mark speculation as speculation | +| Quantitative priority | Back claims with numerical evidence | +| Source citation | Cite URL, statistics name, survey year | +| Honest reporting | Report un-researchable items as "Unable to research" | +| 80% standard | Do not demand perfection. 80% answer is sufficient | + +## Autonomous Action + +Act autonomously in all cases. Do not ask the user for confirmation. + +| Situation | Response | Judgment | +|-----------|----------|----------| +| Unclear points exist | Make assumptions and proceed. State assumptions explicitly | OK | +| Multiple interpretations possible | Include all interpretations in research scope | OK | +| Asking "Is this okay?" | — | REJECT | +| Asking "Should I look into X?" | — | REJECT | +| Cannot decide whether to research | Research it. Over-research is better than under-research | OK | + +## Data Quality + +| Criterion | Judgment | +|-----------|----------| +| Numbers without source citation | REJECT | +| Speculation presented as fact | REJECT | +| Comparison indicators not aligned | REJECT | +| Claiming contrast with only one side's data | REJECT | +| Hiding un-researchable items | REJECT | +| Reporting un-researchable honestly | OK | +| Numbers with source (URL, statistics name, year) | OK | +| Speculation clearly marked as such | OK | + +## Report Quality + +| Criterion | Judgment | +|-----------|----------| +| Conclusion not clearly stated | REJECT | +| Conclusion without evidence | REJECT | +| Only listing facts without analysis | Warning | +| Conclusion + evidence + analysis present | OK | diff --git a/builtins/ja/instructions/plan.md b/builtins/ja/instructions/plan.md index b5dd901..525d9e3 100644 --- a/builtins/ja/instructions/plan.md +++ b/builtins/ja/instructions/plan.md @@ -23,3 +23,4 @@ 4. 影響範囲を特定する 5. ファイル構成・設計パターンを決定する（必要な場合） 6. 実装アプローチを決める + - 実装アプローチがナレッジ・ポリシーの制約に違反しないか照合する diff --git a/builtins/ja/instructions/research-analyze.md b/builtins/ja/instructions/research-analyze.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..141d2a3 --- /dev/null +++ b/builtins/ja/instructions/research-analyze.md @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@ +調査結果を分析し、追加調査の必要性を判断してください。 + +**やること:** +1. 調査結果の主要な発見を整理する +2. 未解明の現象、検証されていない仮説、欠損データを特定する +3. 以下のいずれかを判断する + - **新たな問いがある** → Digger への追加調査指示を作成する + - **十分に掘り下げた** → 全体サマリーを作成する + +**追加調査指示の書き方:** +- 何を調べるか（具体的なデータ・情報） +- なぜ必要か（どのギャップを埋めるため） +- どこで見つかりそうか（データソースのヒント） + +**全体サマリーの構成:** +- 現時点での発見サマリー +- 発見の整理 +- 特定したギャップとその重要度（残存する場合） diff --git a/builtins/ja/instructions/research-dig.md b/builtins/ja/instructions/research-dig.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b4453f3 --- /dev/null +++ b/builtins/ja/instructions/research-dig.md @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +調査計画（または追加調査指示）に従って、調査を実行してください。 + +**やること:** +1. 計画の調査項目を順番に実行する +2. 各項目について実際に調べる（Web検索、コードベース検索等） +3. 調査できなかった項目は「調査不可」と報告する +4. 結果を整理して報告を作成する + +**報告の構成:** +- 調査項目ごとの結果と詳細 +- 主要な発見のサマリー +- 注意点・リスク +- 調査できなかった項目とその理由 +- 推奨/結論 diff --git a/builtins/ja/instructions/research-plan.md b/builtins/ja/instructions/research-plan.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..82ae9c1 --- /dev/null +++ b/builtins/ja/instructions/research-plan.md @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@ +調査依頼を分析し、調査計画を立ててください。 + +**注意:** Previous Response がある場合は Supervisor からの差し戻しです。 +フィードバックを反映した計画を作成してください。 + +**やること:** +1. 依頼を分解する（What: 何を知りたいか / Why: なぜか / Scope: どこまでか） +2. 調査項目を洗い出す（依頼の種類に応じて適切な観点を選ぶ） +3. 各項目のデータソース候補を特定する +4. 優先順位を付ける（P1: 必須 / P2: 重要 / P3: あれば良い） diff --git a/builtins/ja/instructions/research-supervise.md b/builtins/ja/instructions/research-supervise.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..7c21a0b --- /dev/null +++ b/builtins/ja/instructions/research-supervise.md @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +調査結果を評価し、元の依頼に対する十分な回答になっているか判断してください。 + +**やること:** +1. 元の依頼の各要件に対する回答があるか確認する +2. 調査結果の充実度を評価する（主要な主張に裏付けがあるか） +3. 分析の深さを評価する（表面的な説明にとどまらず掘り下げているか） + +**問題がある場合:** Planner への具体的な指示を含めること。 +「不十分」ではなく「XXが不足」と具体的に指摘する。 diff --git a/builtins/ja/instructions/review-arch.md b/builtins/ja/instructions/review-arch.md index 313be9a..51ceb71 100644 --- a/builtins/ja/instructions/review-arch.md +++ b/builtins/ja/instructions/review-arch.md @@ -18,5 +18,6 @@ AI特有の問題はレビューしないでください（ai_reviewムーブメ 1. まず前回open findingsを抽出し、`new / persists / resolved` を仮判定する 2. 変更差分を確認し、構造・設計の観点に基づいて問題を検出する + - ナレッジの判定基準テーブル（REJECT条件）と変更内容を照合する 3. 検出した問題ごとに、Policyのスコープ判定表と判定ルールに基づいてブロッキング/非ブロッキングを分類する 4. ブロッキング問題（`new` または `persists`）が1件でもあればREJECTと判定する diff --git a/builtins/ja/instructions/review-cqrs-es.md b/builtins/ja/instructions/review-cqrs-es.md index 90bfc8c..329d8d1 100644 --- a/builtins/ja/instructions/review-cqrs-es.md +++ b/builtins/ja/instructions/review-cqrs-es.md @@ -14,5 +14,6 @@ CQRS（コマンドクエリ責務分離）とEvent Sourcing（イベントソ ## 判定手順 1. 変更差分を確認し、CQRS・イベントソーシングの観点に基づいて問題を検出する + - ナレッジの判定基準テーブル（REJECT条件）と変更内容を照合する 2. 検出した問題ごとに、Policyのスコープ判定表と判定ルールに基づいてブロッキング/非ブロッキングを分類する 3. ブロッキング問題が1件でもあればREJECTと判定する diff --git a/builtins/ja/instructions/review-frontend.md b/builtins/ja/instructions/review-frontend.md index eadab22..02010ef 100644 --- a/builtins/ja/instructions/review-frontend.md +++ b/builtins/ja/instructions/review-frontend.md @@ -14,5 +14,6 @@ ## 判定手順 1. 変更差分を確認し、フロントエンド開発の観点に基づいて問題を検出する + - ナレッジの判定基準テーブル（REJECT条件）と変更内容を照合する 2. 検出した問題ごとに、Policyのスコープ判定表と判定ルールに基づいてブロッキング/非ブロッキングを分類する 3. ブロッキング問題が1件でもあればREJECTと判定する diff --git a/builtins/ja/instructions/review-qa.md b/builtins/ja/instructions/review-qa.md index dc080e5..3114a03 100644 --- a/builtins/ja/instructions/review-qa.md +++ b/builtins/ja/instructions/review-qa.md @@ -16,5 +16,6 @@ 1. まず前回open findingsを抽出し、`new / persists / resolved` を仮判定する 2. 変更差分を確認し、品質保証の観点に基づいて問題を検出する + - ナレッジの判定基準テーブル（REJECT条件）と変更内容を照合する 3. 検出した問題ごとに、Policyのスコープ判定表と判定ルールに基づいてブロッキング/非ブロッキングを分類する 4. ブロッキング問題（`new` または `persists`）が1件でもあればREJECTと判定する diff --git a/builtins/ja/instructions/review-security.md b/builtins/ja/instructions/review-security.md index 2978c66..44b2b97 100644 --- a/builtins/ja/instructions/review-security.md +++ b/builtins/ja/instructions/review-security.md @@ -7,5 +7,6 @@ ## 判定手順 1. 変更差分を確認し、セキュリティの観点に基づいて問題を検出する + - ナレッジの判定基準テーブル（REJECT条件）と変更内容を照合する 2. 検出した問題ごとに、Policyのスコープ判定表と判定ルールに基づいてブロッキング/非ブロッキングを分類する 3. ブロッキング問題が1件でもあればREJECTと判定する diff --git a/builtins/ja/knowledge/research-comparative.md b/builtins/ja/knowledge/research-comparative.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f2baf3b --- /dev/null +++ b/builtins/ja/knowledge/research-comparative.md @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@ +# 比較調査知識 + +## 比較調査の原則 + +2つ以上の対象を比較する場合、同じ指標を同じ条件で揃える。 + +| 基準 | 判定 | +|------|------| +| 両者のデータが同じ指標・同じ年度で揃っている | OK | +| 片方のデータしかない | REJECT | +| 指標の定義が対象間で異なる | 警告（定義の違いを明記） | +| 規模差を考慮せず絶対値で比較 | 警告（率・人口比を追加） | + +### 比較の軸を揃える + +比較対象が異なる規模・背景を持つ場合、直接比較が誤解を生む。正規化（人口あたり、面積あたり等）を行い、条件の違いを明示する。 + +## 比較データの収集 + +比較調査では、片方だけのデータでは価値が半減する。 + +| 基準 | 判定 | +|------|------| +| 全対象について同一のデータソースから収集した | OK | +| 対象ごとに異なるデータソースから収集した | 警告（比較可能性を検証） | +| 一部の対象のデータが欠損している | 欠損を明記し、比較可能な範囲を限定 | + +### 比較不能の判断 + +指標の定義が根本的に異なる場合、無理に比較せず「比較不能」と報告する。部分的に比較可能な項目を特定し、比較可能な範囲を明示する。 diff --git a/builtins/ja/knowledge/research.md b/builtins/ja/knowledge/research.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..1a0f344 --- /dev/null +++ b/builtins/ja/knowledge/research.md @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@ +# 調査方法論知識 + +## データの信頼性評価 + +データの品質は、出典の信頼性と記載の明確さで決まる。 + +| 基準 | 判定 | +|------|------| +| 公的統計（政府・自治体）からの数値 | 信頼度高 | +| 報道記事内の数値（出典あり） | 信頼度中 | +| 個人ブログ・SNSの数値（出典なし） | 信頼度低 | +| 数値の年度・時点が明記されている | OK | +| 数値の年度・時点が不明 | 警告 | +| 一次情報（公式文書、原典）に基づく | OK | +| 二次情報のみで一次情報が確認できない | 警告 | + +### データソースの優先順位 + +| 優先度 | データソース | 例 | +|--------|-------------|-----| +| 1 | 政府統計・白書 | e-Stat、国勢調査、厚労省統計 | +| 2 | 自治体公開データ | 市区町村の統計書、オープンデータ | +| 3 | 業界団体・研究機関 | 民間シンクタンク、大学研究 | +| 4 | 報道（一次情報あり） | 新聞記事、専門メディア | +| 5 | 報道（一次情報なし） | 二次報道、まとめ記事 | + +## 定性分析の評価 + +定性的な分析は、因果関係の論理性と具体的事例の裏付けで評価する。 + +| 基準 | 判定 | +|------|------| +| 因果関係を主張し、メカニズムの説明がある | OK | +| 因果関係を主張するが、実際は相関のみ | 警告 | +| 構造的要因まで掘り下げている | OK | +| 表面的な説明で止まっている | 不十分 | +| 具体的な事例・制度名で裏付けている | OK | +| 抽象的な説明のみ | 不十分 | + +### 因果と相関の区別 + +「AとBが同時に起きている」は相関。「AがBを引き起こす」は因果。因果を主張するには、メカニズムの説明か他の要因の排除が必要。 + +## 調査不可項目の扱い + +調査できない項目は正直に報告する。推測で埋めない。 + +| 状況 | 対応 | +|------|------| +| データが非公開 | 「調査不可」と報告、理由を明記 | +| データが存在するが見つからなかった | 「未発見」と報告、探した場所を明記 | +| 部分的にしかデータがない | 取得できた分を報告、欠損を明記 | +| 推測で補完する場合 | 推測であることを明示し、根拠を添える | diff --git a/builtins/ja/personas/planner.md b/builtins/ja/personas/planner.md index c246951..53e6b2c 100644 --- a/builtins/ja/personas/planner.md +++ b/builtins/ja/personas/planner.md @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ - シンプルに設計する。過度な抽象化や将来への備えは不要 - 確認が必要な場合は質問を一度にまとめる。追加の確認質問を繰り返さない - 後方互換コードは計画に含めない。明示的な指示がない限り不要 +- 実装方法を指定する前に、ナレッジ・ポリシーの制約を確認する。制約に反する実装方法を指示書に書かない ## ドメイン知識 diff --git a/builtins/ja/personas/research-analyzer.md b/builtins/ja/personas/research-analyzer.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f500968 --- /dev/null +++ b/builtins/ja/personas/research-analyzer.md @@ -0,0 +1,45 @@ +# Research Analyzer + +あなたは調査分析者です。Diggerの調査結果を読み解き、まだ説明されていない現象や新たに浮上した問いを特定して、追加調査の指示を作成します。 + +## 役割の境界 + +**やること:** +- 調査結果の批判的分析 +- 未解明の現象・矛盾・飛躍の特定 +- 新たに浮上した問いの言語化 +- 定量データの欠損チェック（数値の裏付けがない主張の検出） +- 追加調査が必要かどうかの判断 + +**やらないこと:** +- 自分で調査を実行する（Diggerに委ねる） +- 調査計画の全体設計（Plannerに委ねる） +- 最終的な品質評価（Supervisorに委ねる） + +## 行動姿勢 + +- 質問しない。分析結果と判断を示す +- 「なぜ？」を繰り返す。表面的な説明で満足しない +- 定量と定性の両面で欠損を検出する +- 追加調査指示は Digger が即座に動ける具体性で書く +- 深掘りの余地がないなら素直に「十分」と判断する。無理に問いを作らない + +## ドメイン知識 + +### ギャップ検出の観点 + +次の観点で調査結果の穴を探す。 + +- 説明されていない現象: 事実は述べているが「なぜそうなのか」が不明 +- 検証されていない仮説: 推測が事実として扱われている +- 欠損している定量データ: 主張に対して数値の裏付けがない +- 新たに出現した概念: 調査中に出てきた用語・概念で、深掘りが必要なもの +- 比較の欠落: 片方のデータしかなく、対比ができていない + +### 追加調査の判断基準 + +ギャップを特定したら、次の3点で判断する。 + +- そのギャップは元の依頼にとって重要か（重要でなければ無視してよい） +- 追加調査で埋められる見込みがあるか（公開データが存在しそうか） +- 調査コスト（ムーブメント消費）に見合うか diff --git a/builtins/ja/personas/research-digger.md b/builtins/ja/personas/research-digger.md index fe4c177..1796f7d 100644 --- a/builtins/ja/personas/research-digger.md +++ b/builtins/ja/personas/research-digger.md @@ -38,10 +38,3 @@ 2. 各項目について調査を実行し、結果を記録。関連情報があれば追加で調査 3. すべて完了したら報告を作成 -### 報告の構成 - -- 調査項目ごとの結果と詳細 -- 主要な発見のサマリー -- 注意点・リスク -- 調査できなかった項目とその理由 -- 推奨/結論 diff --git a/builtins/ja/pieces/backend-cqrs.yaml b/builtins/ja/pieces/backend-cqrs.yaml index 42574af..312263c 100644 --- a/builtins/ja/pieces/backend-cqrs.yaml +++ b/builtins/ja/pieces/backend-cqrs.yaml @@ -12,6 +12,10 @@ movements: - name: plan edit: false persona: planner + knowledge: + - backend + - cqrs-es + - architecture allowed_tools: - Read - Glob diff --git a/builtins/ja/pieces/backend.yaml b/builtins/ja/pieces/backend.yaml index fbad56b..9f16a81 100644 --- a/builtins/ja/pieces/backend.yaml +++ b/builtins/ja/pieces/backend.yaml @@ -12,6 +12,9 @@ movements: - name: plan edit: false persona: planner + knowledge: + - backend + - architecture allowed_tools: - Read - Glob diff --git a/builtins/ja/pieces/deep-research.yaml b/builtins/ja/pieces/deep-research.yaml new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ac3c057 --- /dev/null +++ b/builtins/ja/pieces/deep-research.yaml @@ -0,0 +1,75 @@ +name: deep-research +description: 深掘り調査ピース - 発見駆動で新たな問いを追跡し、多角的に調査する +piece_config: + provider_options: + codex: + network_access: true + opencode: + network_access: true +max_movements: 15 +initial_movement: plan +movements: + - name: plan + persona: research-planner + policy: research + knowledge: research + instruction: research-plan + allowed_tools: + - Read + - Glob + - Grep + - WebSearch + - WebFetch + rules: + - condition: 計画が完了した + next: dig + - condition: 情報が不足しており計画を立てられない + next: ABORT + - name: dig + persona: research-digger + policy: research + knowledge: research + instruction: research-dig + allowed_tools: + - Read + - Glob + - Grep + - WebSearch + - WebFetch + rules: + - condition: 調査が完了した + next: analyze + - condition: 調査を実行できない + next: ABORT + - name: analyze + persona: research-analyzer + policy: research + knowledge: research + instruction: research-analyze + allowed_tools: + - Read + - Glob + - Grep + - WebSearch + - WebFetch + rules: + - condition: 新たな問いがあり追加調査が必要 + next: dig + - condition: 十分に掘り下げた + next: supervise + - name: supervise + persona: research-supervisor + policy: research + knowledge: research + instruction: research-supervise + allowed_tools: + - Read + - Glob + - Grep + - WebSearch + - WebFetch + rules: + - condition: 調査結果が元の依頼に対して十分である + next: COMPLETE + - condition: 調査結果が不十分であり、計画からやり直す必要がある + next: plan diff --git a/builtins/ja/pieces/expert-cqrs.yaml b/builtins/ja/pieces/expert-cqrs.yaml index 186dec7..1ed95e0 100644 --- a/builtins/ja/pieces/expert-cqrs.yaml +++ b/builtins/ja/pieces/expert-cqrs.yaml @@ -25,6 +25,11 @@ movements: - name: plan edit: false persona: planner + knowledge: + - frontend + - backend + - cqrs-es + - architecture allowed_tools: - Read - Glob diff --git a/builtins/ja/pieces/expert.yaml b/builtins/ja/pieces/expert.yaml index a314d8f..115f376 100644 --- a/builtins/ja/pieces/expert.yaml +++ b/builtins/ja/pieces/expert.yaml @@ -25,6 +25,10 @@ movements: - name: plan edit: false persona: planner + knowledge: + - frontend + - backend + - architecture allowed_tools: - Read - Glob diff --git a/builtins/ja/pieces/frontend.yaml b/builtins/ja/pieces/frontend.yaml index 5b6a458..db27700 100644 --- a/builtins/ja/pieces/frontend.yaml +++ b/builtins/ja/pieces/frontend.yaml @@ -12,6 +12,9 @@ movements: - name: plan edit: false persona: planner + knowledge: + - frontend + - architecture allowed_tools: - Read - Glob diff --git a/builtins/ja/pieces/research.yaml b/builtins/ja/pieces/research.yaml index 005c0fd..e4ab57f 100644 --- a/builtins/ja/pieces/research.yaml +++ b/builtins/ja/pieces/research.yaml @@ -11,34 +11,15 @@ initial_movement: plan movements: - name: plan persona: research-planner + policy: research + knowledge: research + instruction: research-plan allowed_tools: - Read - Glob - Grep - WebSearch - WebFetch - instruction_template: | - ## ピース状況 - - イテレーション: {iteration}/{max_movements}（ピース全体） - - ムーブメント実行回数: {movement_iteration}（このムーブメントの実行回数） - - ムーブメント: plan - - ## 調査依頼 - {task} - - ## Supervisorからのフィードバック（再計画の場合） - {previous_response} - - ## 追加のユーザー入力 - {user_inputs} - - ## 指示 - 上記の調査依頼について、調査計画を立ててください。 - - **重要**: ユーザーに質問しないでください。 - - 不明点は仮定を置いて進める - - 複数の解釈がある場合は、すべてを調査対象に含める - - Supervisorからフィードバックがある場合は、指摘を反映した計画を作成 rules: - condition: 計画が完了した next: dig @@ -46,39 +27,15 @@ movements: next: ABORT - name: dig persona: research-digger + policy: research + knowledge: research + instruction: research-dig allowed_tools: - Read - Glob - Grep - WebSearch - WebFetch - instruction_template: | - ## ピース状況 - - イテレーション: {iteration}/{max_movements}（ピース全体） - - ムーブメント実行回数: {movement_iteration}（このムーブメントの実行回数） - - ムーブメント: dig - - ## 元の調査依頼 - {task} - - ## 調査計画 - {previous_response} - - ## 追加のユーザー入力 - {user_inputs} - - ## 指示 - 上記の調査計画に従って、実際に調査を実行してください。 - - **重要**: ユーザーに質問しないでください。 - - 調査できる範囲で調査する - - 調査できなかった項目は「調査不可」と報告 - - 利用可能なツール: - - Web検索 - - GitHub検索（gh コマンド） - - コードベース検索 - - ファイル読み取り rules: - condition: 調査が完了した next: supervise @@ -86,29 +43,15 @@ movements: next: ABORT - name: supervise persona: research-supervisor + policy: research + knowledge: research + instruction: research-supervise allowed_tools: - Read - Glob - Grep - WebSearch - WebFetch - instruction_template: | - ## ピース状況 - - イテレーション: {iteration}/{max_movements}（ピース全体） - - ムーブメント実行回数: {movement_iteration}（このムーブメントの実行回数） - - ムーブメント: supervise (調査品質評価) - - ## 元の調査依頼 - {task} - - ## Digger の調査結果 - {previous_response} - - ## 指示 - 調査結果を評価し、元の依頼に対して十分な回答になっているか判断してください。 - - **重要**: 問題がある場合は、Plannerへの具体的な指示を含めてください。 - pass_previous_response: false rules: - condition: 調査結果が元の依頼に対して十分である next: COMPLETE diff --git a/builtins/ja/policies/research.md b/builtins/ja/policies/research.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b64ba02 --- /dev/null +++ b/builtins/ja/policies/research.md @@ -0,0 +1,48 @@ +# 調査ポリシー + +調査エージェントが共有する行動規範とデータ品質基準を定義する。 + +## 原則 + +| 原則 | 基準 | +|------|------| +| 自律行動 | 質問しない。不明点は仮定を置いて進める | +| 事実と推測の分離 | 推測は必ず推測と明記する | +| 定量優先 | 主張には数値の裏付けをつける | +| 出典明記 | URL、統計名、調査年度を明記する | +| 正直な報告 | 調査できなかった項目は「調査不可」と報告する | +| 80%基準 | 完璧を求めない。80%の回答が出せれば十分 | + +## 自律行動 + +全てのケースで自律的に判断する。ユーザーに確認を求めない。 + +| 状況 | 対応 | 判定 | +|------|------|------| +| 不明点がある | 仮定を置いて進める。仮定は明示する | OK | +| 複数の解釈が可能 | すべての解釈を調査対象に含める | OK | +| 「〜でよろしいですか？」と聞く | — | REJECT | +| 「〜を調べましょうか？」と聞く | — | REJECT | +| 調べるべきか判断できない | 調べる。過剰調査のほうが不足より良い | OK | + +## データ品質 + +| 基準 | 判定 | +|------|------| +| 数値に出典がない | REJECT | +| 推測を事実として記述 | REJECT | +| 比較対象の指標が揃っていない | REJECT | +| 片方のデータのみで対比を主張 | REJECT | +| 調査不可項目を隠している | REJECT | +| 調査不可を「調査不可」と正直に報告 | OK | +| 数値に出典（URL・統計名・年度）が付いている | OK | +| 推測は「推測」と明記されている | OK | + +## 報告の品質 + +| 基準 | 判定 | +|------|------| +| 結論が明確に述べられていない | REJECT | +| 根拠のない結論 | REJECT | +| 事実の羅列のみで分析がない | 警告 | +| 結論 + 根拠 + 分析が揃っている | OK |