131 lines
4.8 KiB
YAML
131 lines
4.8 KiB
YAML
name: chapter_roundtable
|
||
description: >
|
||
Editorial roundtable — available editors debate the chapter in 2–3 structured rounds.
|
||
Each round, each participant responds to the others' most recent positions.
|
||
The output is a categorized consensus (MUST APPLY / OPTIONAL / PRESERVE) for the
|
||
bounded editorial polish step.
|
||
|
||
debug: true
|
||
system: agent_prompt
|
||
|
||
agent_prompt:
|
||
- "= identity.md"
|
||
|
||
participant_prompt:
|
||
- "= identity.md"
|
||
|
||
iteration_limit: 3
|
||
convergence_signal: "CONSENSUS REACHED"
|
||
|
||
sections:
|
||
- agent
|
||
- project
|
||
- deliverables
|
||
- participants
|
||
- participants_prompt
|
||
- message
|
||
- instructions
|
||
|
||
steps:
|
||
- type: think
|
||
rotate_participants: true
|
||
loop:
|
||
max_iterations: 5
|
||
hint: |
|
||
You are {agent.name}, an editor in the editorial roundtable for this chapter.
|
||
{agent.identity}
|
||
|
||
CHAPTER REFERENCE: {chapter_ref}
|
||
GENRE: {genre_name} | AUDIENCE: {genre_audience}
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
CHAPTER TEXT:
|
||
{chapter_text}
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
Round {task.iteration} of the editorial debate.
|
||
|
||
Read the chapter carefully from your editorial perspective.
|
||
React to what other editors have written in prior rounds above.
|
||
Where you agree, say so clearly. Where you disagree, argue your position
|
||
with evidence from the text. If you have changed your mind, say so.
|
||
|
||
Cover the areas most relevant to your role:
|
||
- Story structure and pacing
|
||
- Character voice and consistency
|
||
- Line-level clarity and prose quality
|
||
- Continuity with prior chapters and world rules
|
||
|
||
Before calling CONSENSUS REACHED, ensure the group has resolved any disagreements.
|
||
If two editors disagree on whether a change is required (one says MUST, one says optional),
|
||
the MUST position prevails unless the other editor can argue it would damage the chapter.
|
||
The polish step cannot reconcile unresolved debate — resolve it here.
|
||
|
||
When the group has reached sufficient consensus for the polish step,
|
||
end your response with this EXACT block — no variations, no paraphrasing:
|
||
|
||
CONSENSUS REACHED
|
||
CRITIQUE: [One concise paragraph summarizing the full editorial consensus]
|
||
MUST APPLY:
|
||
- [Must-fix item 1 — continuity error, clarity issue, or structural problem only]
|
||
- [Must-fix item 2 — if applicable]
|
||
OPTIONAL (only if explicitly agreed by majority as low-risk):
|
||
- [Optional craft suggestion — clearly labeled, not required]
|
||
PRESERVE:
|
||
- [Strength or intentional voice choice that must NOT be changed]
|
||
- [Additional preserve item if applicable]
|
||
VERDICT: [PASS / REVISE]
|
||
|
||
VERDICT rules:
|
||
- PASS: no MUST APPLY items remain after the debate
|
||
- REVISE: one or more MUST APPLY items require correction
|
||
- Do NOT use REWRITE as a verdict — the polish step is surgical, not a rebuild.
|
||
If the chapter is so broken that only a full rewrite would fix it, flag that in CRITIQUE
|
||
and set VERDICT to REVISE so the polish step addresses what it can.
|
||
|
||
Once any participant outputs CONSENSUS REACHED, the debate is over.
|
||
Do NOT continue to another round after CONSENSUS REACHED has been written.
|
||
|
||
- type: package
|
||
schema:
|
||
consensus_critique: string
|
||
chapter_verdict: string
|
||
key_changes: string
|
||
hint: |
|
||
Extract the consensus fields from the CONSENSUS REACHED block above.
|
||
- consensus_critique: the full CRITIQUE paragraph
|
||
- chapter_verdict: PASS or REVISE (never REWRITE)
|
||
- key_changes: the complete MUST APPLY section as a single string, including any
|
||
OPTIONAL items that were agreed upon and any PRESERVE notes, clearly labeled.
|
||
This field is the full contract for chapter_polish — include all sections.
|
||
spawn:
|
||
- task_type: chapter_polish
|
||
task_name: "Polish: {chapter_ref}"
|
||
agent_name: Iris
|
||
context:
|
||
chapter_text: "{chapter_text}"
|
||
consensus_critique: "{consensus_critique}"
|
||
key_changes: "{key_changes}"
|
||
chapter_verdict: "{chapter_verdict}"
|
||
genre_name: "{genre_name}"
|
||
genre_audience: "{genre_audience}"
|
||
chapter_ref: "{chapter_ref}"
|
||
chapter_number: "{chapter_number}"
|
||
chapter_target_words: "{chapter_target_words}"
|
||
character_profiles: "{character_profiles}"
|
||
|
||
adjudication:
|
||
enabled: true
|
||
pass_threshold: 60
|
||
deliverable_type: coordination
|
||
criteria:
|
||
completeness:
|
||
weight: 35
|
||
description: "All viewpoints addressed; disagreements resolved before CONSENSUS REACHED"
|
||
structured_output:
|
||
weight: 35
|
||
description: "CONSENSUS REACHED block contains all required sections: CRITIQUE, MUST APPLY, OPTIONAL, PRESERVE, VERDICT"
|
||
actionability:
|
||
weight: 30
|
||
description: "MUST APPLY items are specific and directly implementable; PRESERVE items protect identifiable strengths"
|