Compare commits

..
4 Commits
Author SHA1 Message Date
bvandeusen 5503580875 Merge pull request 'Process contracts — invoke by name, compose with the conversation, author as a shape' (#109) from dev into main
CI & Build / Python lint (push) Successful in 4s
CI & Build / Plugin hooks (push) Successful in 9s
CI & Build / integration (push) Successful in 16s
CI & Build / TypeScript typecheck (push) Successful in 32s
CI & Build / Python tests (push) Successful in 48s
CI & Build / Build & push image (push) Successful in 17s
2026-08-10 09:51:47 -04:00
bvandeusenandClaude Fable 5 5cb7cfe706 feat(processes): authoring contract — a process is a shape, never a script
CI & Build / Python lint (push) Successful in 3s
CI & Build / Plugin hooks (push) Successful in 9s
CI & Build / integration (push) Successful in 17s
CI & Build / TypeScript typecheck (push) Successful in 32s
CI & Build / Python tests (push) Successful in 46s
CI & Build / Build & push image (push) Successful in 26s
Operator's generalization of #2582: the benefit of nearly every stored
process is the accumulated SHAPE — steps, taxonomy, quality bar — and a
process must not force anything or overwrite the intent of the request
that invoked it. create_process now states the authoring side of the
composition contract: no embedded approach mandates, no pre-granted
approvals, clarify steps seed from the conversation instead of
re-asking it.

(All three stored processes were also audited: DRY Pass and Rulebook
Review were already propose-approve-apply with no forcing language;
both gained the seeded-clarify line — data changes, live already.)

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-10 09:40:23 -04:00
bvandeusenandClaude Fable 5 9c68faa0bd feat(processes): composition contract — the process is the skeleton, the conversation supplies the parameters
CI & Build / Python lint (push) Successful in 4s
CI & Build / Plugin hooks (push) Successful in 8s
CI & Build / integration (push) Successful in 14s
CI & Build / TypeScript typecheck (push) Successful in 32s
CI & Build / Python tests (push) Successful in 47s
CI & Build / Build & push image (push) Successful in 24s
Extends #2582's fix per the operator's direction: a stored Process must
incorporate the context it was triggered with, not displace it. No new
plumbing needed — the live context is already in the session; what was
missing is the stated contract. get_process now carries it: live
constraints/scope/focus fold into the procedure and override its
defaults where they disagree; a clarify step asks only what the
conversation has NOT already answered (confirm interpretations, don't
re-ask); stated concerns become lenses the procedure applies, not text
it discards. The sync-generated skill stubs state the short form.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-10 08:39:02 -04:00
bvandeusenandClaude Fable 5 66c4fd1b88 fix(sync): process-skill triggers invoke by name only — resemblance offers, never substitutes
CI & Build / Python lint (push) Successful in 3s
CI & Build / Plugin hooks (push) Successful in 10s
CI & Build / integration (push) Successful in 18s
CI & Build / TypeScript typecheck (push) Successful in 22s
CI & Build / Python tests (push) Successful in 47s
CI & Build / Build & push image (push) Successful in 26s
Scribe issue #2582: the sync wrote "Use when {title}-type work is
requested" into every generated process skill, so a bespoke live prompt
that merely resembled a stored Process got the Process's canned
procedure — and inherited approvals embedded in its body (the Drift
Audit's fan-out opt-in) that the conversation never granted. Observed
live: an explicit systems-review request with its own constraints was
answered with the Drift Audit clarify menu recommending ~15 parallel
auditors.

New trigger contract, both variants: follow verbatim only when invoked
by name; on mere resemblance the live instructions govern — offer the
process, ask before following, and never inherit embedded approvals the
operator hasn't granted in this conversation.

(The Drift Audit process record itself was also rewritten to a
sequential in-context walk — data change, live already, recorded in
the same issue.)

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-10 08:33:40 -04:00
2 changed files with 35 additions and 6 deletions
+19
View File
@@ -49,6 +49,15 @@ async def create_process(
) -> dict:
"""Create a stored process (a reusable saved prompt).
AUTHOR IT AS A SHAPE, NOT A SCRIPT. A process's value is the accumulated
procedure — the steps, the taxonomy, the quality bar, the failure modes
worth guarding. It must not force anything the invoking conversation
didn't choose: no embedded approach mandates, no pre-granted approvals
(a fan-out opt-in, a permission to act), no assumptions that overwrite
the live request's intent. The conversation that invokes it supplies the
parameters and always wins where they disagree; write clarify steps to
seed from what the operator already said, not to re-ask it.
Args:
title: Process name, e.g. "Drift Audit" (required).
body: The full prompt to run later (markdown). Required.
@@ -87,6 +96,16 @@ async def get_process(name_or_id: str) -> dict:
fire mechanism. The operator says "run the <name> process"; call this and
follow the returned body (including any 'clarify first' steps it contains).
COMPOSITION CONTRACT — a process is the PROCEDURE, not the whole prompt.
The conversation that invoked it supplies the PARAMETERS: fold the
operator's live constraints, scope, and focus areas into the procedure,
and wherever the two disagree, the live instructions override the
process's defaults. A 'clarify first' step asks only what the
conversation has NOT already answered — confirm your interpretation of
what was said rather than re-asking it, and turn stated concerns (a
posture, a hardware budget, a subsystem under suspicion) into lenses the
procedure applies, not text it discards.
Resolution: numeric id → exact (case-insensitive) title → substring. On an
ambiguous substring match, the best (most-recent) match is returned with an
`other_matches` list so you can disambiguate with the operator.
+16 -6
View File
@@ -223,17 +223,27 @@ async def build_process_manifest(user_id: int) -> dict:
f'A shared Scribe process "{title}", authored by {owner} — NOT the'
f" operator's own."
+ (f" {preview}" if preview else "")
+ f' Use when {title}-type work is requested, or when asked to run'
f' the "{title}" process — but summarise it and get the operator\'s'
f" go-ahead before following it, since it reflects {owner}'s"
f" judgement rather than theirs."
+ f' Use only when the operator asks to run the "{title}" process'
f" by name — and even then summarise it and get their go-ahead"
f" first, since it reflects {owner}'s judgement rather than"
f" theirs. If a request merely resembles this process, the live"
f" instructions govern: offer it by name, don't follow it."
)
else:
description = (
f'Run the operator\'s saved Scribe process "{title}".'
+ (f" {preview}" if preview else "")
+ f' Use when {title}-type work is requested, or when asked to run'
f' the "{title}" process.'
+ f' Use when the operator asks to run the "{title}" process by'
f" name. If a request merely RESEMBLES this process, the live"
f" instructions govern — offer the process by name and ask"
f" before following it; never substitute it for explicit"
f" instructions, and never inherit approvals embedded in it"
f" (e.g. a fan-out opt-in) the operator hasn't granted in this"
f" conversation. When you do run it, the process is the"
f" skeleton and the conversation supplies the parameters:"
f" constraints stated live override its defaults, and clarify"
f" questions the conversation already answers are confirmed,"
f" not re-asked."
)
entry = {
"id": it["id"], "name": title, "slug": slug,