David F GliddenandClaude Opus 5
3af7207c29
The wrap was complete and committed; the steward then ran /doctor, which found and fixed real breakage. Recorded as an addendum to the same session file rather than a new one — it is the same session, past midnight. Fixed: 8 sub-agent name collisions across 21 files (15 renamed; 0 remain, 48 unique names — confirmed by the harness, which surfaced 15 previously invisible agents immediately). 4 invalid SKILL.md frontmatters, latent rather than live since the harness parses leniently. plane MCP disabled (0 calls in 41 real sessions). permissions.defaultMode set to auto. chamber-library/CLAUDE.md trimmed 54,129 -> 22,530 chars, under the warning threshold, all 42 tool names and all 9 sections preserved. TWO LOOSE ENDS recorded in ADDENDUM 1 and flagged in MEMORY.md, because either would strand the next session: 1. chamber-library/CLAUDE.md is UNCOMMITTED — a 31,861-char deletion, steward-approved at the doctor gate, left for the steward because the doctor protocol forbids the executor committing CLAUDE.md edits. git diff --stat reports 11 lines and badly understates it; the cut sections were single 16k/20k-char lines. 2. ~/.claude/agents is NOT GIT-TRACKED — 51 hand-edited files, 0 tracked, not a symlink into dotfiles. The renames therefore have no version history, and the only backup went to a session-scoped scratchpad that dies on clear. The full rename mapping is written into ADDENDUM 1 and is the only undo that survives. The wider gap is noticed and NOT filed, per the proposed moratorium: a governed surface with no version control, in a system whose premise is that the record must be checkable. Found by accident. Also logged: a thirteenth instrument error. I reported dotfiles as having unpushed commits to "origin" by conflating two repos' status lines — dotfiles has gitea and github and no origin; the origin line was studium-engine's. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_017vKkg2EJF1rGwdFdBogwqx
57 lines
6.1 KiB
Markdown
57 lines
6.1 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: tooling-scan
|
|
description: 'Survey the dev-tooling landscape for tools that could help US build CapableMind better — agent runtimes, memory substrates, inference infra, skill/diagnostic tooling. The build-lens sibling of /landscape-scan (which scans competitors). Generative but anti-shiny: a tool earns adoption only if it addresses a named bottleneck at acceptable switching cost with governance-grain fit. Surfaces candidates and bounded trials; never adopts unilaterally. Records to the tooling register.'
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Tooling Scan
|
|
|
|
Survey dev tooling that could help us *build* CapableMind — and keep the **tooling register** current. Sibling of `/landscape-scan` (which scans comparable/competing projects). The lenses are opposite: landscape asks *"is someone building what we build?"*; tooling asks *"what helps us build it?"*
|
|
|
|
## Principle
|
|
|
|
> *Research is important, but it must push us to make something better — not defeat us.* (steward)
|
|
|
|
Generative, but **anti-shiny**. The honest prior: our bottlenecks are usually **not tool-shaped** — they're hard engineering bugs, collaborator bandwidth, and the deliberately governed pace the work demands. A shinier tool is often a *displacement activity* — the question we reach for because the real work is slow. So the bar is high: a tool earns a look only if it maps to a **named bottleneck**, and earns adoption only if the gain clears the **switching cost** and the tool runs **with our governance grain, not against it**.
|
|
|
|
## §0 — Resolve the workstream lens
|
|
|
|
This skill is **workstream-parametrized** — one method, many lenses ("simple exterior, complex underneath"). Default workstream: **`capablemind`**.
|
|
|
|
If invoked as `/tooling-scan <workstream>` (e.g. `studium-engine`), FIRST read `~/_Dev/CapableMind-AI/docs/thinking/David/research/lens-<workstream>.md` and use its values — **the bet**, **the named bottlenecks** (the step-2 gate), **the governance-grain test**, **the register path**, and **workstream-specific sources** — in place of the CapableMind specifics named below (the `capablemind` lens, also in `lens-capablemind.md`). If no card exists for the named workstream, say so and stop — never scan against a guessed lens.
|
|
|
|
## The rubric (per candidate)
|
|
|
|
Assess in order — stop early if it fails an upstream test:
|
|
|
|
1. **What it is + maturity.** Verify from source/docs, not marketing. Mark `[SPECULATIVE]`.
|
|
2. **Which named bottleneck does it address?** Map to our actual list — e.g.: *hard-bug diagnosis* · *MemPalace reliability* · *inference reliability/cost* (the teacher/slot tier) · *procedural-knowledge capture* · *parallelism/throughput* · *spec↔code workflow*. **If it maps to none → PASS.** "More capable" is not a bottleneck.
|
|
3. **Switching/integration cost vs marginal gain** over the current stack (Claude Code + MemPalace + our skills + the governance loop). Be concrete about what we'd give up.
|
|
4. **Governance-grain fit.** Does it run *with* our model or *against* it? Test against: the loop is load-bearing (does it push autonomy past propose?), data sovereignty (does our content leave the machine?), contamination (does it pressure toward pleasing outputs?). Hermes-as-runtime ran *against* (autonomous self-write); OpenRouter was *configurable-compatible* (default-no-log + ZDR + BYOK).
|
|
5. **Verdict:** `ADOPT-candidate` · `HARVEST` (borrow the idea into our existing tools, don't switch — as we did turning Hermes's self-improvement into the governed skill-harvest step) · `TRY` (bounded experiment) · `PASS` · `WATCH`.
|
|
6. **Incumbent-bias flag.** For runtime/substrate-class candidates (things that would replace Claude Code or MemPalace), the assessing agent *is the incumbent* — say so, discount the "don't switch" reflex, and prefer a **bounded empirical trial by the steward** over the agent's assertion.
|
|
|
|
## Procedure
|
|
|
|
1. **Open the tooling register** — `~/_Dev/CapableMind-AI/docs/thinking/David/research/tooling-register.md` (create on first run; seed with the stack in play). Read current entries + last-scanned. Append in place.
|
|
2. **Re-check the stack in play for movement** (incumbents + already-surfaced tools: Claude Code, MemPalace, OpenRouter, Hermes-as-runtime). Has anything changed that shifts a prior verdict? (Movement matters as much as novelty — cf. Hermes's self-improvement loop appearing between April and May.)
|
|
3. **Scan for new candidates mapped to a named bottleneck.** Sources: GitHub (trending dev-tools, MCP servers, agent harnesses), HN, the landscape register's watch list, release notes of tools we already use.
|
|
4. **Run each through the rubric.** Be ruthless at step 2 (named bottleneck) — most finds PASS there, and that's the point, not a failure of the scan.
|
|
5. **Record + recommend.** Append verdicts to the register; spin a dated deep-dive only for an `ADOPT-candidate`/`TRY`. Surface a digest: the few that matter, each with *bottleneck-addressed + verdict*, and any **bounded trial** worth the steward running.
|
|
|
|
## Output
|
|
|
|
A tight digest:
|
|
- **Movement** in incumbents/known tools (or "none").
|
|
- **New candidates that cleared step 2** (named bottleneck), each one line: *tool — bottleneck — verdict*.
|
|
- **Recommended bounded trials** (for runtime/substrate-class, steward-run, with the incumbent-bias caveat).
|
|
- **Register updated:** what changed.
|
|
|
|
## Constraints
|
|
|
|
- **Anti-shiny.** If a scan only produces "X is more capable," it found nothing — re-aim at the named-bottleneck test. A clean "nothing worth adopting" is the common, valid result.
|
|
- **Verify from source.** No claims from marketing or memory; read docs/code, cite, mark speculation.
|
|
- **Surface, don't adopt.** Adoption is the steward's call — and for anything touching the *product* (inference infra, substrate) or the *runtime*, it's steward + Seb + jurist. The scan informs; it never switches tools.
|
|
- **Name the incumbent bias.** The assessing agent benefits from the status quo; say so on runtime/substrate calls and lean on bounded trials over assertion.
|
|
- **Proportion.** A couple-of-days pulse. Don't let tool-shopping become the work instead of the building.
|
|
- **Pool with Seb.** Shared register; he scans too (the OpenRouter and Hermes finds were his).
|