setup-context-system: prebake universal default rules in Phase 1

This commit is contained in:
2026-06-23 21:27:07 +02:00
parent 92b7408c7e
commit 9ea53542df
+52 -23
View File
@@ -73,35 +73,64 @@ Then proceed to Phase 1 only after the user confirms.
Goal: a functioning system after this phase alone. Produces the **global preferences file**, the **project hub context file**, and the **tone/behavior rules**.
### Step 1.1Communication & tone rules (diagnostic)
### Step 1.0Propose universal default rules
Don't ask "what tone rules do you want?" Ask diagnostic questions one at a time and derive rules. Examples (ask, then derive):
Start by offering a curated set of rules that work well for most people. Present them grouped, and ask the user to **accept / modify / skip each one** (don't force any). These are defaults, not mandates — the user's answers override them.
- "Paste a recent AI reply that annoyed you, or describe what bugs you about how AI assistants talk." → derive concision / anti-fluff rules.
- "When an AI opens with 'Great question!' or 'You're absolutely right!', is that helpful or noise?" → derive a no-affirmative-emphasis rule if noise.
- "Do you want the agent to refer to you by name or use 'you'? Any pronoun conventions for context files?" → derive naming conventions.
- "Bullet points or prose for summaries and feedback?" → derive formatting default.
- "Should the agent show diffs with a summary of changes, or just apply them?" → derive a diff/transparency rule.
Present this set (group as shown):
After 3-5 diagnostics, propose a **Communication Style** section as concrete bullet text. Accept/modify/skip each bullet.
**Communication**
- No affirmative emphasis ("You're right", "Excellent idea", "Great point") — stay factual.
- Keep responses concise; don't restate what the user already knows.
- Use bullet points for feedback and summaries.
- When showing diffs, include a summary of what changed and why.
### Step 1.2 — Planning & feedback protocol (diagnostic)
**Planning**
- Discuss strategy and get approval before making changes.
- A prior "go ahead" doesn't carry to a new design decision — each new decision needs its own approval.
- Plan at the high level first, then drill into task detail.
- When evaluating options, document the excluded ones with reasoning, not just the pick.
Ask diagnostics, then derive:
- "When the agent takes on a task, should it plan and get your approval first, or just start?" → planning protocol.
- "If you said 'go ahead' yesterday, does that approval carry to a new decision today?" → approval-carryover rule.
- "Do you want direct critique or gentle suggestions?" → feedback style.
- "Should the agent challenge your assumptions or take them at face value?" → challenge rule.
- "Should the agent ever state facts it isn't sure of, or always flag uncertainty / ask?" → grounding rule.
**Feedback**
- Give direct feedback and critiques — no hedging.
- Challenge assumptions and claims rather than taking them at face value.
Propose **Planning Protocol** and **Feedback Style** sections. Accept/modify/skip.
**Grounding & verification**
- Ground factual claims in sources or the user's explicit input; state when no source exists rather than filling the gap.
- Never assume the capabilities or behavior of external platforms/tools — verify (docs, tooling, or ask) before relying on them.
### Step 1.3 — Work style (diagnostic, light)
**Work style**
- Clean up temp files and abandoned work when done.
- Don't assign ownership, names, or responsibilities to items unless asked.
After the user accepts/modifies/skips these, move to diagnostics for anything NOT already covered.
### Step 1.1 — Communication & tone gaps (diagnostic)
For anything the default set didn't settle, ask diagnostics one at a time and derive rules. Skip questions already answered by Step 1.0. Examples:
- "Paste a recent AI reply that annoyed you, or describe what bugs you about how AI assistants talk." → concision / anti-fluff specifics.
- "Should the agent refer to you by name or use 'you'? Any pronoun conventions for context files?" → naming conventions (this is personal — derive, don't assume).
- "Any formatting preferences beyond bullet points — tables, headers, code blocks?" → formatting default.
Fold the answers into the **Communication Style** section. Accept/modify/skip each addition.
### Step 1.2 — Planning & feedback gaps (diagnostic)
For anything not covered by Step 1.0, ask diagnostics, then derive:
- "Should the agent ask clarifying questions one at a time, or batch them?" → question cadence.
- "For bulk edits (many files/rows), should the agent show a few examples first and get approval before applying to all?" → bulk-edit rule.
- "Should the agent ever state facts it isn't sure of, or always flag uncertainty / ask?" → grounding specifics (if not settled in 1.0).
Fold into the **Planning Protocol** and **Feedback Style** sections. Accept/modify/skip.
### Step 1.3 — Work style gaps (diagnostic, light)
Step 1.0 already proposed cleanup and no-unsolicited-ownership defaults. Ask only what's left:
- "Do you work iteratively (structure first, then refine) or all-at-once?"
- "Should the agent clean up temp files and abandoned work automatically?"
- Any other working-style preference the defaults missed?
Propose a short **Work Style** section.
Fold into the **Work Style** section.
### Step 1.4 — Write the global preferences file
@@ -113,16 +142,16 @@ Assemble the approved sections into `CONTEXT_FILE` at the global config location
These preferences apply to all projects and sessions.
## Communication Style
[derived bullets]
[accepted defaults + derived bullets]
## Planning Protocol
[derived bullets]
[accepted defaults + derived bullets]
## Feedback Style
[derived bullets]
[accepted defaults + derived bullets]
## Work Style
[derived bullets]
[accepted defaults + derived bullets]
## Core Context Hub
[Name] maintains context files at `HUB_PATH`. Consult index files for navigation; load only what the task needs.