- book_chapter: Remove PASS 2+3 (internal polish cycle); replace with narrow
SELF-CHECK step (structural validation only — names/POV/hook/format/word-floor).
Add anti-overpolish drafting discipline rules to PASS 1.
Add genre-aware guide-use note (apply only the guide matching {genre_name}).
Update adjudication prose_quality description to match draft-quality standard.
- chapter_polish: Convert from broad 'Rewrite the chapter' pass to bounded
editorial control pass. Explicitly forbids expansion, sensory addition,
global voice upgrades, new content. Instructs verbatim preservation of
unaffected paragraphs. Adjudication rewritten around correction fidelity
rather than 'more polished is better'. Threshold lowered from 90 to 80.
- chapter_review: Add explicit output categories — STRENGTHS TO PRESERVE,
MUST-FIX CONTINUITY, MUST-FIX CLARITY, OPTIONAL, FORBIDDEN, VERDICT.
Remove 'REWRITE' verdict option (roundtable resolves that). Remove all three
writing-craft guides (editorial tasks do not need genre writing guidance).
- chapter_roundtable: Update CONSENSUS REACHED block to MUST APPLY / OPTIONAL /
PRESERVE / VERDICT categories. Require disagreements to be resolved before
calling consensus. Remove REWRITE verdict option. Remove all writing-craft
guides. Remove 'skills' from sections. Add package hint to populate key_changes
from the full structured consensus. Update adjudication to score structured output.
- book_outline: Strengthen Voice & Tone Guide as hard operating constraints
(not aspirations); include anti-overpolish rules, rhythm rules, and voice
don'ts. Expand per-chapter outline format to include Opens-at location,
Character state, and Dominant tension. Enrich chapter task description
packets with that state data so book_chapter has richer upstream context.
- skills/skills.md: Document writing-vs-editorial guide split established in
Sprint 56. Update Used-by column. Add boundary rules section.
Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
129 lines
4.7 KiB
YAML
129 lines
4.7 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_target_words: "{chapter_target_words}"
|
||
|
||
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"
|