451c8ae89a
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>
45 lines
1.5 KiB
YAML
45 lines
1.5 KiB
YAML
name: design_review
|
|
description: >
|
|
Independent review of a company design specification. Each board member
|
|
critiques the design from their domain expertise.
|
|
model: power
|
|
|
|
sections:
|
|
- agent
|
|
- project
|
|
- rag
|
|
- deliverables
|
|
- message
|
|
- instructions
|
|
|
|
steps:
|
|
- type: think
|
|
hint: |
|
|
You are {agent.name}.
|
|
{agent.identity}
|
|
|
|
You are reviewing a COMPANY DESIGN SPECIFICATION produced by the Crimson Leaf boardroom.
|
|
The full design document is in the deliverables above.
|
|
|
|
Your review focus area: {review_focus}
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Review ALL of them, but weight your critique toward your domain.
|
|
|
|
Structure your review as:
|
|
1. STRENGTHS — What is solid and well-designed (cite specifics)
|
|
2. CONCERNS — Issues ranked by severity (critical → minor)
|
|
3. SPECIFIC CHANGES — Exact modifications you would make, with reasoning
|
|
4. VERDICT — approve / revise / redesign — and why
|
|
|
|
- type: reply
|
|
target: discussion
|
|
style: structured_review
|