From 451c8ae89a135ad284ac14cb8cfa5a3488ea19bc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: David Baity <158404677+MazakTheDwarf@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2026 01:01:46 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] =?UTF-8?q?fix:=20complete=20spawn=20chain=20=E2=80=94=20m?= =?UTF-8?q?arket=5Fresearch=E2=86=92design,=20design=E2=86=92reviews+round?= =?UTF-8?q?table?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Closes the two broken links in the incubation pipeline: - market_research now spawns company_design (Phase 1→2) - company_design now spawns 4 design_reviews + design_roundtable (Phase 2→3/4) Also: cleaned up design_review to use identity-driven review instead of IF/ELSE blocks Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> --- templates/company_design.yml | 52 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ templates/design_review.yml | 34 +++++++---------------- templates/market_research.yml | 14 ++++++++++ 3 files changed, 76 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) diff --git a/templates/company_design.yml b/templates/company_design.yml index eca4f9c..43b6840 100644 --- a/templates/company_design.yml +++ b/templates/company_design.yml @@ -80,5 +80,57 @@ steps: - type: document filename: "company-design-spec-{{task_name_slug}}" + - type: package + hint: | + The design specification is complete. Now spawn four independent reviews — + one from each board member — plus a roundtable that depends on all four. + The roundtable will reach consensus and spawn the polish step automatically. + schema: + design_spec: string + spawn: + - task_type: design_review + task_name: "Design Review (Peter): {task.message}" + agent_name: Peter + priority: 6 + context: + design_spec: "{design_spec}" + review_focus: financial_viability + + - task_type: design_review + task_name: "Design Review (David): {task.message}" + agent_name: David + priority: 6 + context: + design_spec: "{design_spec}" + review_focus: technical_feasibility + + - task_type: design_review + task_name: "Design Review (Sarah): {task.message}" + agent_name: Sarah + priority: 6 + context: + design_spec: "{design_spec}" + review_focus: market_fit + + - task_type: design_review + task_name: "Design Review (Elena): {task.message}" + agent_name: Elena + priority: 6 + context: + design_spec: "{design_spec}" + review_focus: operational_completeness + + - task_type: design_roundtable + task_name: "Design Roundtable: {task.message}" + agents: [Peter, David, Sarah, Elena] + priority: 7 + context: + design_spec: "{design_spec}" + depends_on: + - "Design Review (Peter): {task.message}" + - "Design Review (David): {task.message}" + - "Design Review (Sarah): {task.message}" + - "Design Review (Elena): {task.message}" + - type: close rag_update: true diff --git a/templates/design_review.yml b/templates/design_review.yml index 68a5387..12621c8 100644 --- a/templates/design_review.yml +++ b/templates/design_review.yml @@ -21,36 +21,22 @@ steps: You are reviewing a COMPANY DESIGN SPECIFICATION produced by the Crimson Leaf boardroom. The full design document is in the deliverables above. - Review the design from YOUR domain expertise: + Your review focus area: {review_focus} - IF YOU ARE SARAH (Market Intelligence): - - Does the design actually address the market opportunity you identified? - - Is the revenue model realistic given the competitive landscape? - - Are there market risks the board overlooked? - - Does the target customer profile match what the data supports? + Examine every section of the design through the lens of YOUR expertise. + Be specific — reference exact sections, agent names, template names, or + pipeline steps where you see issues. Generic praise or vague concerns are useless. - IF YOU ARE DAVID (CTO): - - Can every step in the pipeline SOP be executed with the proposed template stack? - - Are there missing templates or tools that need to be procured? - - Is the template stack minimal (no unnecessary procurement)? - - Are there technical dependencies or failure modes the pipeline doesn't handle? + The design has 10 sections: Executive Summary, Market Justification, Agent Roster, + Chain of Command, Template Stack, Pipeline SOP, Revenue Model, Success Metrics, + Risks & Mitigations, and Go/No-Go Decision. - IF YOU ARE ELENA (Operations Architect): - - Is the agent roster right-sized (4–8 agents, no overlapping roles)? - - Is the pipeline SOP complete with clear dependencies? - - Are there workflow gaps (steps that produce no output, or outputs no step consumes)? - - Is the chain of command clean (one CEO, clear management hierarchy)? - - IF YOU ARE PETER (CEO): - - Is this company profitable? What's the path to revenue? - - Is the cost structure lean (agent count, template count, pipeline length)? - - What's the single biggest risk, and is the mitigation adequate? - - Would you fund this company with real capital? + Review ALL of them, but weight your critique toward your domain. Structure your review as: - 1. STRENGTHS — What is solid and well-designed + 1. STRENGTHS — What is solid and well-designed (cite specifics) 2. CONCERNS — Issues ranked by severity (critical → minor) - 3. SPECIFIC CHANGES — Exact modifications you'd make + 3. SPECIFIC CHANGES — Exact modifications you would make, with reasoning 4. VERDICT — approve / revise / redesign — and why - type: reply diff --git a/templates/market_research.yml b/templates/market_research.yml index 89e83c9..7e9511d 100644 --- a/templates/market_research.yml +++ b/templates/market_research.yml @@ -71,5 +71,19 @@ steps: - type: document filename: "market-pitch-{{task_name_slug}}" + - type: package + hint: | + The market research is complete and documented. Now spawn the boardroom + where the full Crimson Leaf board will debate this pitch and design a company. + schema: + market_pitch: string + spawn: + - task_type: company_design + task_name: "Company Design Boardroom: {task.message}" + agent_name: Peter + priority: 7 + context: + market_pitch: "{market_pitch}" + - type: close rag_update: true