Files
crimson_leaf_publishing/templates/chapter_roundtable.yml
David Baity 1f811e98e1 fix(clp): genericise templates — no hardcoded agents/companies/task-types
- planning.yml: roster-driven task types, no hardcoded agent names or generic types
- chapter_roundtable.yml: removed fixed [Devon,Lane,Cora] participant list, any editor can join
- book_chapter.yml: removed hardcoded agents from roundtable spawn
- book_research.yml: removed agent: Atlas from book_outline spawn (Bouncer routes by type)
- ai_article_research.yml: removed agent_name: Atlas from plan spawn
- book_editorial.yml: removed Shadow Heir/Elara/Kai/Alpha Publishing/Wattpad hardcoding
- project_index.yml: removed Wattpad reference
- ai_article_write.yml: fixed adjudication criteria (article, not fiction chapter)
- chapter_review.yml: reply→document so reviews are committed and accessible

Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
2026-03-12 01:34:36 -04:00

87 lines
2.4 KiB
YAML
Raw Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters

This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.

name: chapter_roundtable
description: >
Editorial roundtable — available editors debate the chapter in 23 structured rounds.
Each round, each participant responds to the others' most recent positions.
The output is a consensus critique (or documented disagreement) for the polish step.
debug: true
participant_prompt:
- "= identity.md"
iteration_limit: 3
convergence_signal: "CONSENSUS REACHED"
sections:
- agent
- project
- participants
- participants_prompt
- message
- instructions
steps:
- type: think
rotate_participants: true
loop:
max_iterations: 3
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
If the group has reached sufficient consensus for the polish step,
end your response with: CONSENSUS REACHED
- type: package
schema:
consensus_critique: string
chapter_verdict: string
key_changes: list
spawn:
- task_type: chapter_polish
task_name: "Polish: {chapter_ref}"
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}"
adjudication:
enabled: true
pass_threshold: 60
deliverable_type: coordination
criteria:
completeness:
weight: 40
description: "All viewpoints and concerns addressed"
consensus_clarity:
weight: 35
description: "Clear outcome or decision documented"
actionability:
weight: 25
description: "Next steps are concrete and assignable"