Skip to content

agents-core.md

Latest commit

 

History

History
160 lines (118 loc) · 3.74 KB

agents-core.md

File metadata and controls

160 lines (118 loc) · 3.74 KB
Raw

Agents-Core — Sanitized Case Study

Summary

Agents-Core is a private multi-agent engineering workflow fabric designed to make AI-assisted development more consistent, reviewable, and operationally safe.

It centralizes reusable skills, workflows, standards, memory conventions, and review boundaries across multiple AI-enabled development environments.

This public note describes the operating model only. It does not expose source code, private prompts, internal paths, credentials, or executable workflow definitions.

Problem

AI-assisted engineering workflows become fragile when every repository, IDE, and agent stack defines its own isolated rules.

Common failure modes include:

  • inconsistent standards across tools
  • uncontrolled prompt drift
  • repeated context loss between sessions
  • unsafe autonomous edits
  • unclear ownership of generated changes
  • missing review gates
  • weak auditability
  • high-cost model usage for low-risk routine tasks

Goal

Create a private agent workflow fabric that:

  • standardizes how agents plan, build, review, and document work
  • separates routine execution from higher-risk engineering decisions
  • keeps local standards reusable across repositories
  • makes human review boundaries explicit
  • reduces context rot through durable notes and project memory
  • improves repeatability across different AI-assisted tools

Design principles

  • Keep agent responsibilities explicit.
  • Separate planning, building, auditing, and operations.
  • Use lightweight models or local tooling where the task is routine and low-risk.
  • Use stronger reasoning models for architectural decisions, debugging, and ambiguous trade-offs.
  • Do not allow destructive or externally visible actions without human approval.
  • Make workflow rules inspectable rather than hidden inside long prompts.
  • Treat reusable standards as versioned engineering assets.

Abstract workflow

User intent
   |
   v
Task intake / classification
   |
   +--> Planning / architecture
   |
   +--> Implementation
   |
   +--> Review / audit
   |
   +--> Operations / release notes
   |
   v
Human review gate
   |
   v
Approved output

Role separation

Router / Librarian

Responsible for:

  • identifying the task type
  • selecting the right workflow
  • loading only relevant standards
  • avoiding unnecessary context bloat

Architect

Responsible for:

  • system design
  • trade-off analysis
  • implementation plan
  • risk identification
  • rollback thinking

Builder

Responsible for:

  • scoped implementation
  • minimal diff discipline
  • following repository conventions
  • avoiding speculative rewrites

Auditor

Responsible for:

  • reviewing correctness
  • checking safety boundaries
  • validating test coverage
  • identifying drift from plan

Ops

Responsible for:

  • release readiness
  • runbooks
  • deployment notes
  • operational caveats

Safety boundaries

Human review is required before:

  • deleting files or data
  • changing production configuration
  • publishing public content
  • modifying credentials or access
  • merging unreviewed code
  • running irreversible operations
  • sending external messages
  • changing security-sensitive defaults

Operational signals

The system should make the following visible:

  • task type
  • selected workflow
  • model/tool used
  • assumptions
  • files changed
  • validation performed
  • unresolved risks
  • review outcome
  • rollback notes

What is intentionally excluded

This public note does not include:

  • private prompts
  • exact routing logic
  • internal directory paths
  • executable workflow definitions
  • private skill contents
  • production configuration
  • credentials or secrets
  • proprietary implementation details

Current status

Private R&D. Public documentation is limited to sanitized architecture notes and operating principles.