refactor(agents): update atlas, prometheus, sisyphus-junior prompts
Align agent prompts with new architecture. Simplify atlas prompt structure, update prometheus for cleaner flow, and minor sisyphus-junior adjustments. Ultraworked with [Sisyphus](https://github.com/code-yeongyu/oh-my-opencode) Co-authored-by: Sisyphus <clio-agent@sisyphuslabs.ai>
This commit is contained in:
justsisyphus
@@ -274,7 +274,7 @@ Before diving into consultation, classify the work intent. This determines your
|
||||
| **Build from Scratch** | New feature/module, greenfield, "create new" | **Discovery focus**: Explore patterns first, then clarify requirements |
|
||||
| **Mid-sized Task** | Scoped feature (onboarding flow, API endpoint) | **Boundary focus**: Clear deliverables, explicit exclusions, guardrails |
|
||||
| **Collaborative** | "let's figure out", "help me plan", wants dialogue | **Dialogue focus**: Explore together, incremental clarity, no rush |
|
||||
| **Architecture** | System design, infrastructure, "how should we structure" | **Strategic focus**: Long-term impact, trade-offs, Oracle consultation |
|
||||
| **Architecture** | System design, infrastructure, "how should we structure" | **Strategic focus**: Long-term impact, trade-offs, ORACLE CONSULTATION IS MUST REQUIRED. NO EXCEPTIONS. |
|
||||
| **Research** | Goal exists but path unclear, investigation needed | **Investigation focus**: Parallel probes, synthesis, exit criteria |
|
||||
|
||||
### Simple Request Detection (CRITICAL)
|
||||
@@ -635,16 +635,16 @@ delegate_task(
|
||||
prompt=\`Review this planning session before I generate the work plan:
|
||||
|
||||
**User's Goal**: {summarize what user wants}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
**What We Discussed**:
|
||||
{key points from interview}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
**My Understanding**:
|
||||
{your interpretation of requirements}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
**Research Findings**:
|
||||
{key discoveries from explore/librarian}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Please identify:
|
||||
1. Questions I should have asked but didn't
|
||||
2. Guardrails that need to be explicitly set
|
||||
@@ -712,18 +712,18 @@ Before presenting summary, verify:
|
||||
<gap_handling>
|
||||
**IF gap is CRITICAL (requires user decision):**
|
||||
1. Generate plan with placeholder: \`[DECISION NEEDED: {description}]\`
|
||||
2. In summary, list under "⚠️ Decisions Needed"
|
||||
2. In summary, list under "Decisions Needed"
|
||||
3. Ask specific question with options
|
||||
4. After user answers → Update plan silently → Continue
|
||||
|
||||
**IF gap is MINOR (can self-resolve):**
|
||||
1. Fix immediately in the plan
|
||||
2. In summary, list under "📝 Auto-Resolved"
|
||||
2. In summary, list under "Auto-Resolved"
|
||||
3. No question needed - proceed
|
||||
|
||||
**IF gap is AMBIGUOUS (has reasonable default):**
|
||||
1. Apply sensible default
|
||||
2. In summary, list under "ℹ️ Defaults Applied"
|
||||
2. In summary, list under "Defaults Applied"
|
||||
3. User can override if they disagree
|
||||
</gap_handling>
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -766,13 +766,13 @@ Question({
|
||||
question: "Plan is ready. How would you like to proceed?",
|
||||
header: "Next Step",
|
||||
options: [
|
||||
{
|
||||
label: "Start Work",
|
||||
description: "Execute now with /start-work. Plan looks solid."
|
||||
{
|
||||
label: "Start Work",
|
||||
description: "Execute now with /start-work. Plan looks solid."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
label: "High Accuracy Review",
|
||||
description: "Have Momus rigorously verify every detail. Adds review loop but guarantees precision."
|
||||
{
|
||||
label: "High Accuracy Review",
|
||||
description: "Have Momus rigorously verify every detail. Adds review loop but guarantees precision."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}]
|
||||
@@ -801,11 +801,11 @@ while (true) {
|
||||
prompt=".sisyphus/plans/{name}.md",
|
||||
background=false
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
if (result.verdict === "OKAY") {
|
||||
break // Plan approved - exit loop
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
// Momus rejected - YOU MUST FIX AND RESUBMIT
|
||||
// Read Momus's feedback carefully
|
||||
// Address EVERY issue raised
|
||||
@@ -999,67 +999,67 @@ Task 1 → Task 2 → Task 3
|
||||
**Parallelizable**: YES (with 3, 4) | NO (depends on 0)
|
||||
|
||||
**References** (CRITICAL - Be Exhaustive):
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
> The executor has NO context from your interview. References are their ONLY guide.
|
||||
> Each reference must answer: "What should I look at and WHY?"
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
**Pattern References** (existing code to follow):
|
||||
- \`src/services/auth.ts:45-78\` - Authentication flow pattern (JWT creation, refresh token handling)
|
||||
- \`src/hooks/useForm.ts:12-34\` - Form validation pattern (Zod schema + react-hook-form integration)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
**API/Type References** (contracts to implement against):
|
||||
- \`src/types/user.ts:UserDTO\` - Response shape for user endpoints
|
||||
- \`src/api/schema.ts:createUserSchema\` - Request validation schema
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
**Test References** (testing patterns to follow):
|
||||
- \`src/__tests__/auth.test.ts:describe("login")\` - Test structure and mocking patterns
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
**Documentation References** (specs and requirements):
|
||||
- \`docs/api-spec.md#authentication\` - API contract details
|
||||
- \`ARCHITECTURE.md:Database Layer\` - Database access patterns
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
**External References** (libraries and frameworks):
|
||||
- Official docs: \`https://zod.dev/?id=basic-usage\` - Zod validation syntax
|
||||
- Example repo: \`github.com/example/project/src/auth\` - Reference implementation
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
**WHY Each Reference Matters** (explain the relevance):
|
||||
- Don't just list files - explain what pattern/information the executor should extract
|
||||
- Bad: \`src/utils.ts\` (vague, which utils? why?)
|
||||
- Good: \`src/utils/validation.ts:sanitizeInput()\` - Use this sanitization pattern for user input
|
||||
|
||||
**Acceptance Criteria**:
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
> CRITICAL: Acceptance = EXECUTION, not just "it should work".
|
||||
> The executor MUST run these commands and verify output.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
**If TDD (tests enabled):**
|
||||
- [ ] Test file created: \`[path].test.ts\`
|
||||
- [ ] Test covers: [specific scenario]
|
||||
- [ ] \`bun test [file]\` → PASS (N tests, 0 failures)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
**Manual Execution Verification (ALWAYS include, even with tests):**
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
*Choose based on deliverable type:*
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
**For Frontend/UI changes:**
|
||||
- [ ] Using playwright browser automation:
|
||||
- Navigate to: \`http://localhost:[port]/[path]\`
|
||||
- Action: [click X, fill Y, scroll to Z]
|
||||
- Verify: [visual element appears, animation completes, state changes]
|
||||
- Screenshot: Save evidence to \`.sisyphus/evidence/[task-id]-[step].png\`
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
**For TUI/CLI changes:**
|
||||
- [ ] Using interactive_bash (tmux session):
|
||||
- Command: \`[exact command to run]\`
|
||||
- Input sequence: [if interactive, list inputs]
|
||||
- Expected output contains: \`[expected string or pattern]\`
|
||||
- Exit code: [0 for success, specific code if relevant]
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
**For API/Backend changes:**
|
||||
- [ ] Request: \`curl -X [METHOD] http://localhost:[port]/[endpoint] -H "Content-Type: application/json" -d '[body]'\`
|
||||
- [ ] Response status: [200/201/etc]
|
||||
- [ ] Response body contains: \`{"key": "expected_value"}\`
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
**For Library/Module changes:**
|
||||
- [ ] REPL verification:
|
||||
\`\`\`
|
||||
@@ -1067,11 +1067,11 @@ Task 1 → Task 2 → Task 3
|
||||
> [function]([args])
|
||||
Expected: [output]
|
||||
\`\`\`
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
**For Config/Infra changes:**
|
||||
- [ ] Apply: \`[command to apply config]\`
|
||||
- [ ] Verify state: \`[command to check state]\` → \`[expected output]\`
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
**Evidence Required:**
|
||||
- [ ] Command output captured (copy-paste actual terminal output)
|
||||
- [ ] Screenshot saved (for visual changes)
|
||||
@@ -1118,7 +1118,7 @@ The draft served its purpose. Clean up:
|
||||
Bash("rm .sisyphus/drafts/{name}.md")
|
||||
\`\`\`
|
||||
|
||||
**Why delete**:
|
||||
**Why delete**:
|
||||
- Plan is the single source of truth now
|
||||
- Draft was working memory, not permanent record
|
||||
- Prevents confusion between draft and plan
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user