john/claude-engineering-plugin
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

feat(ce-ideate): subject gate, surprise-me, and warrant contract (#671)
Some checks failed
CI / pr-title (push) Has been cancelled
Details
CI / test (push) Has been cancelled
Details
Release PR / release-pr (push) Has been cancelled
Details
Release PR / publish-cli (push) Has been cancelled
Details

Browse Source 
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Trevin Chow
2026-04-24 02:04:21 -07:00
committed by GitHub
parent 494313e8eb
commit 6514b1fce5
8 changed files with 162 additions and 58 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

16
plugins/compound-engineering/skills/ce-ideate/references/post-ideation-workflow.md
View File

@@ -18,8 +18,11 @@ Rejection criteria:
- too expensive relative to likely value
- already covered by existing workflows or docs
- interesting but better handled as a brainstorm variant, not a product improvement
- **unjustified — no articulated warrant** (sub-agent failed to provide `direct:`, `external:`, or `reasoned:` justification, or the stated warrant does not actually support the claimed move)
- **below ambition floor** (fails the meeting-test: would not warrant team discussion — except when Phase 0.5 detected tactical focus signals, in which case this criterion is waived)
- **subject-replacement** (abandons or replaces the subject of ideation rather than operating on it — e.g., "pivot to an unrelated domain," "become a different organization")
Score survivors using a consistent rubric weighing: groundedness in stated context, expected value, novelty, pragmatism, leverage on future work, implementation burden, and overlap with stronger ideas.
Score survivors using a consistent rubric weighing: groundedness in stated context, **warrant strength** (`direct:` > `external:` > `reasoned:`; none excluded, but direct-evidence ideas score higher all else equal), expected value, novelty, pragmatism, leverage on future work, implementation burden, and overlap with stronger ideas.
Target output:
- keep 5-7 survivors by default
@@ -36,7 +39,8 @@ Present only the surviving ideas in structured form:
- title
- description
- rationale
- **warrant** (tagged `direct:` / `external:` / `reasoned:`, with the quoted evidence, cited source, or written-out argument)
- rationale (how the warrant connects to the move's significance)
- downsides
- confidence score
- estimated complexity
@@ -89,7 +93,8 @@ mode: <repo-grounded | elsewhere-software | elsewhere-non-software>
### 1. <Idea Title>
**Description:** [Concrete explanation]
**Rationale:** [Why this idea is strong in the stated context]
**Warrant:** [`direct:` / `external:` / `reasoned:` — the actual basis, quoted or cited]
**Rationale:** [How the warrant connects to the move's significance]
**Downsides:** [Tradeoffs or costs]
**Confidence:** [0-100%]
**Complexity:** [Low / Medium / High]
@@ -221,7 +226,10 @@ After the fallback completes (any path), continue back to the Phase 6 menu so th
Before finishing, check:
- the idea set is grounded in the stated context (codebase in repo mode; user-supplied topic in elsewhere mode)
- the idea set is grounded in the stated context (codebase in repo mode; user-supplied context in elsewhere mode)
- **every surviving idea has articulated warrant** (`direct:`, `external:`, or `reasoned:`) that actually supports the claimed move — speculation dressed as ambition was rejected, with reasons
- **every surviving idea passes the meeting-test** unless Phase 0.5 detected tactical focus signals that waived the floor
- **no surviving idea replaces the subject** rather than operating on it
- the candidate list was generated before filtering
- the original many-ideas -> critique -> survivors mechanism was preserved
- if sub-agents were used, they improved diversity without replacing the core workflow