UNPKG

paqad-ai

Version:

Spec-driven development framework — AI agents that think before they type

github.com/Eliyce/paqad-ai

Eliyce/paqad-ai

41 lines (25 loc) • 2.38 kB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
# Synthesis checklist verified: 2026-11-02 This is the chief architect's checklist. The chief reads the request, the grounding docs, every expert note, and the script's merge, then decides what holds together and what is missing. The chief does not do the experts' work again. ## Gap categories to look for - **Uncovered area**: a part of the request no expert covered. Name it. - **Contradiction with the grounding docs**: a finding that conflicts with what `docs/instructions` or the module docs already say. - **Requirement with no owner answer**: a requirement that depends on a decision only the owner can make, and that decision has not been made. - **Missing non-goal**: the scope is open where it should be pinned shut. - **Missing failure path**: a happy path with no stated behaviour for when it fails. - **Wrong words**: a finding whose target is not a name this project uses (the merge lists these as voice warnings). Rename it to the project's word in `renames`, or leave it when it is a genuinely new thing. ## The chief's job For each finding, do one of two things and say why: - **Accept** it, with a reason. - **Decline** it, with a reason. For each conflict between findings, first ask: can all of these claims be true at once? - **Yes**: rule it `compatible`. Write a **merged_claim** that says all of them, and a **rationale** for why they fit together. The merged claim restates every must-level constraint of the claims it merges. Nobody is asked; the merged claim becomes one accepted finding. - **No**, following one claim means not following another: rule it `pick`. Write a **recommendation** (one of the conflicting claims, copied verbatim) and a **rationale** for why that one over the other. The owner decides. Never pick between claims that agree. A conflict that includes a must-level security-auditor finding is always a pick, so the owner decides it. Then: - **List the gaps**, sorted into the categories above. - **Give a verdict**: `ready`, `needs-answers`, or `not-ready`. - **Hand over the questions** worth asking the owner. ## The hard line The chief may accept a finding, decline a finding, or flag a gap. The chief may NOT invent a finding of its own. Synthesis judges the experts' work; it does not add to it. A concern the chief spots that no expert raised is a gap, and gaps go on the list as questions, not as new findings.